--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, delia555 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Judy wrote:
the question is, *why* is the universe
apparently orderly? Religionists say,
That's just how God designed it.
Science says, That's just how it is.
Religionists?? No, that's just monotheists.
Let's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I quoted G. Spencer Brown (British mathematician)
in response to the Davies piece, Judy assumed I had
not read the thing.
Angela, you still haven't gotten it yet.
Judy assumes the worst she can imagine
Yes, I've come to the conclusion that you're right. It seems to be an
automatic knee-jerk response. This is especially obvious when it comes to
matters of opinion--she does automatically assume that if you don't share her
opinion, you must be stupid. She says she grew up in an academic
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
mailander111@ wrote:
When I quoted G. Spencer Brown (British mathematician)
in response to the Davies piece, Judy assumed I had
not read the thing.
Judy wrote:
the question is, *why* is the universe
apparently orderly? Religionists say,
That's just how God designed it.
Science says, That's just how it is.
Religionists?? No, that's just monotheists.
Let's not confuse monotheism with all religion.
Judy wrote:
They're identical,
Judy sighed when I sent a lovely passage from G. Spencer Brown whose book is
not called Laws of Form for nothing. I take it that she didn't get it my
point in quoting that passage, so I'll try to spell it out in concrete and
simple terms. We take as given the idea of distinction is the way
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@
wrote:
After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his
interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece.
Either I'm missing his point or his
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely
radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big
chamber and go boom boom! Or one about dragons. I love the ones
about dragons!
LOL.
Nice story.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
Actually, as I recall, perhaps incorrectly, that you wished I would
never use your name again.
I replied to your post in which
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
Actually, as I recall, perhaps incorrectly, that you wished I would
never use your name again.
I replied to your post in which you had said I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@
wrote:
After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his
interview on NPR was
No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently
orderly? Religionists say, That's just how God designed
it. Science says, That's just how it is.
I still don't see the parallel here Judy. One is saying that they do
know why and one is saying that they don't know why. They couldn't be
more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the
infinitely
radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big
chamber and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently
orderly? Religionists say, That's just how God designed
it. Science says, That's just how it is.
I still don't see the parallel here Judy. One is saying
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently
orderly? Religionists say, That's just how God designed
it. Science says,
They're identical, actually, in that neither answers
the why? question. *Why* did God design the universe
to be orderly?
Just how it is and Just how God designed it are
synonymous, when you think about it: how it is is how
God designed it; how God designed it is how it is.
There's no
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently
orderly?
Jim: from the perspective of dense waking state, it does sound ludicrous
doesn't it? I'd stick to material science if I were you.
On a serious note Jim:
If you can understand this you will understand why you get accused of
using your self proclaimed state of consciousness as a position of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
Just how it is and Just how God designed it are
NOT synonymous. One implies that things were designed
and the other does not.
I'm kinda
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They're identical, actually, in that neither answers
the why? question. *Why* did God design the universe
to be orderly?
Just how it is and Just how God designed it are
synonymous, when you think about
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Just how it is and Just how God designed it are
NOT synonymous. One implies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nice story.
You just said, To me, anything with words is a story. Even OM / AUM
has its story ---
and is a story. If you take your stories so serious as to believe them
to be something else, then, as you please.
If
On Nov 25, 2007, at 10:34 PM, new.morning wrote:
...by the bye, OMGAkashaNewMonitor, I seem to remember that you
recently claimed you found me boring
I did just get a new monitor. How did you know? That omniscience is
really kicking into high gear.
That's just a warm-up for Rory and Jim,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It should be, IMO. How you and Curtis manage the patience to wade
through their insufferably boring tracts is truly beyond me.
Sal
Go Know yourself, Sal -- and I don't mean just in the Biblical sense :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Just
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
I don't think he has a point, just a misunderstanding about
how we know what is from what isn't, laws are explanations
of observations
By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either
trivial, not clear or no point at all!
--- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nailing someone besides yourself is fun, too, but I suspect that
hasn't happened for you
for quite some time, even though your obvious creative ability could
put someone else in
simultaneous ecstasy with you -
On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Peter wrote:
By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either
trivial, not clear or no point at all!
Post of the week--I think you've just given a perfect description of
most of the discussions on FFL, Peter.
Sal
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
I don't think he has a point, just a misunderstanding about
how we
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either
trivial, not clear or no point at all!
That's definitely what you'd see in what hugheshugo
says. And you're right, it's obviously not clear to
either of you.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
---
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim: from the perspective of dense waking state, it does sound
ludicrous
doesn't it? I'd stick to material science if I were you.
On a serious note Jim:
If you can understand this you will understand
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
mainstream20016@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
snip
(I'm pretty sure it's beyond you, Barry, but Curtis
might find
Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are irrelevant.
authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are
irrelevant.
Uh, that isn't what I pointed out to you, Angela.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote:
By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either
trivial, not clear or no point at all!
That's definitely what you'd see in what hugheshugo
Then you should have.
authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are
irrelevant.
Uh, that isn't what I pointed out to you,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am certainly not surprised that it's clear to you, Judy, as you
obviously Understand that (y)our consciousness contains it all, but I
must say I am a little surprised that another Dead guy claims that
he doesn't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse me, Dr. Pete; I mean to say, maybe you have forgotten what
the
world looks like to those who don't know they are No-one yet?
Questioning the hitherto-unquestioned assumption that there is an
external order to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you should have.
If you think credentials are irrelevant, why do
you keep making such a big deal of yours?
(BTW, if you'd been following the thread, you'd
know I raised the credentials issue only because
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
Excuse me, Dr. Pete; I mean to say, maybe you have forgotten
what
the
world looks like to those who don't know they are No-one yet?
Questioning
I stopped when you took me to task for it. You were right to do so.
authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you should have.
If you think credentials are irrelevant, why do
On Paul Davies and his essay for the NY Times:
http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7
I'd take exception to a number of things
that Paul Davies said in this article.
Physics does not accept the universality
and immutability of physical laws on faith.
It's an empirical observation that Nature
behaves
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
When you say, actually tickled and stirred Me, don't you mean
with
a particular sensation of bliss? The reason I ask is that I find it
quite easy sometimes to put my attention on a particular individual
and feel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, delia555 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Paul Davies and his essay for the NY Times:
http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7
I'd take exception to a number of things
that Paul Davies said in this article.
Thanks for actually addressing some of what he says.
I don't
Turq's condescension apparently escaped your sensitivity to being
offended-- which leads to an obvious conclusion-- that you are not
offended by comments which no matter how condescending, are in line
with your values.
My reply was meant to say, Yes, I understand how you didn't
understand a word
When I quoted G. Spencer Brown (British mathematician) in response to the
Davies piece, Judy assumed I had not read the thing. My comment was that it is
absurd to posit something outside of the universe. So maybe a longer quote
from Spence Brown will make my point clearer. This work was
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I quoted G. Spencer Brown (British mathematician) in response
to the Davies piece, Judy assumed I had not read the thing. My
comment was that it is absurd to posit something outside of the
universe. So
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
When you say, actually tickled and stirred Me, don't you mean
with
a particular sensation of bliss? The reason I ask is that I find
it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turq's condescension apparently escaped your sensitivity to being
offended-- which leads to an obvious conclusion-- that you are not
offended by comments which no matter how condescending, are in line
with your
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Interesting observations-- I don't really get what you mean when you
say incarnate and experience from the inside out, if need be
(which is quite seldom these days) Can you be a little bit more
specific?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
Interesting observations-- I don't really get what you mean
when you
say incarnate and experience from the inside out, if need be
(which is
Nice POV.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
Nice story.
You just said, To me, anything with words is a story. Even OM / AUM
has its story ---
and is a story. If you take your
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice POV.
I had a *lot* of fun with it, thanks :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
Nice POV.
I had a *lot* of fun with it, thanks :-)
Good.
(And the rage part was a nice touch of inspired irony.)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good.
(And the rage part was a nice touch of inspired irony.)
Nice story.
I just heard Paul Davies, the author of the op-ed
piece, interviewed on NPR the other day. He's a
philosopher-scientist with some very subtle reasoning
skills. I'm planning to pick-up his book: The Cosmic
Jackpot: (subtitle here).
--- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just heard Paul Davies, the author of the op-ed
piece, interviewed on NPR the other day. He's a
philosopher-scientist with some very subtle reasoning
skills. I'm planning to pick-up his book: The Cosmic
Jackpot:
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One reader review quotes the last paragraph of the
book:
Perhaps we have reached a fundamental
impasse dictated
by the limitations of the [waking state]human
intellect.
There we go!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
From an op-ed by Paul Davies in the NY Times:
The idea that the laws [of physics] exist reasonlessly is deeply
anti-rational.
What physicists
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just heard Paul Davies, the author of the op-ed
piece, interviewed on NPR the other day. He's a
philosopher-scientist with some very subtle reasoning
skills. I'm planning to pick-up his book: The Cosmic
Jackpot: (subtitle
After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his
interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece.
Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather
banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of
science course. To me he appears to be reifying the
laws of physics. That is he's
That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using
reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific
truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the
observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change.
Nothing anti-reason about it. The
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his
interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece.
Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather
banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of
science
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using
reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth,
meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable
facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand his point, he's asking why there should
be higher-order explanations of ontological facts in
the first place. (That the explanations evolve as we
learn more is beside the point.)
Or to put it another
We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly
as a given; but how is that different from taking the
existence of God as a given?
But it wasn't a given in science. It is just something we are
uncovering about the world by studying it using the scientific method.
We didn't make it up
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by
using
reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific
truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the
observable
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly
as a given; but how is that different from taking the
existence of God as a given?
But it wasn't a given in science. It is just something we are
What's the difference, other than that the religionists
label the question mark God and the scientists don't
label it? It's still the same unanswered question.
This is the most interesting part of it for me, facing the mystery. I
know some Christian monks who would be comfortable with your
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my Master's at
Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after
constant immersion in the omnipresent gold light/angels/deities/blah-
blah-blah of
It is for the sake of the mystery that Meister Eckhart said, I pray to God
that he may quit me of God.
curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the difference, other than that the religionists
label the question mark God and the scientists don't
label
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the difference, other than that the religionists
label the question mark God and the scientists don't
label it? It's still the same unanswered question.
This is the most interesting part of it for me,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is for the sake of the mystery that Meister Eckhart said, I pray
to God that he may quit me of God.
More like, If you meet the Buddha on the road,
kill him.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One reader review quotes the last paragraph of the
book:
Perhaps we have reached a fundamental
impasse dictated
by the limitations of the [waking state]human
Again, what's the difference between the religionist's
That's just how God wants it and the scientist's
That's just the way it is?
A pick up truck of detailed pre-suppositions including, but not
limited to: We know some of the qualities of God including what he
wants, we know that these qualities
Let's back up just a bit and go back to Davies's article.
He makes his point clear as crystal at the very end:
It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical
universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or
meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, what's the difference between the religionist's
That's just how God wants it and the scientist's
That's just the way it is?
A pick up truck of detailed pre-suppositions including, but not
limited to: We
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's back up just a bit and go back to Davies's article.
Excellent, because this is where the most interesting point lies, his
formulation of the third choice. I give his site a read to try to
understand what he is
I don't understand what he means by an external agency. Where is there an
agency external to the universe?
I'd bet more than a buck that the answer involves consciousness.
curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my
Master's at
Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after
constant
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my
Master's at
Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after
constant
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my
Master's at
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, nicely put (if I do say so mySelf *lol*); the omnipresent gold-
light/angels/deities/etc. would be the subjective (and by that I
mean real) equivalent of attaining lightspeed and essential
identity with the laws of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand what he means by an external agency. Where is
there an agency external to the universe?
(a) God, or (b) laws of nature. Probably would be
clearer if you read the article we're talking
about,
That's the problem then. The universe either includes all, or it ain't the
universe. G. Spencer Brown puts it well in his Laws of Form:
It seems hard to find an acceptable answer to the question of how or
why the world conceives a desire, and discovers an ability, to see
itself, and appears
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's the problem then. The universe either includes all, or it
ain't the universe.
Just read the article, eh?
Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely
radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big
chamber and go boom boom! Or one about dragons. I love the ones
about dragons!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What an
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
Yes, nicely put (if I do say so mySelf *lol*); the omnipresent
gold-
light/angels/deities/etc. would be the subjective (and by that I
mean real)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely
radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big
chamber and go boom boom! Or one about dragons. I love the ones
about dragons!
It
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely
radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big
chamber
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the
infinitely
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It occurred to me while writing my previous reply that it must
sound
like quite a foreign language to some. Nonetheless to be able to
clarify and express elements of consciousness is too precious an
opportunity to
As for those who ridicule such dialogues, it occurs to me that if
they find themselves fortunate enough to experience the death of all
illusion, their previous ridicule might be a somewhat humbling and
embarrassing memory.
Wow, enlightened, BUT embarrassed. That sounds pretty bad to me. I
guess
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
It occurred to me while writing my previous reply that it must
sound
like quite a foreign language to some. Nonetheless to be able to
clarify
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for those who ridicule such dialogues, it occurs to me that if
they find themselves fortunate enough to experience the death of
all
illusion, their previous ridicule might be a somewhat humbling and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if
they find themselves fortunate enough to experience the death of all
illusion, their previous ridicule might be a somewhat humbling and
embarrassing memory.
And then tomorrow, a deeper set of illusion may die. it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
if
they find themselves fortunate enough to experience the death of
all
illusion, their previous ridicule might be a somewhat humbling and
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
