If this is a recurring problem, you might consider setting up a separate Admin account, and restricting the permissions of your day-to-day account.

Not only is this statement incorrect (else why would there be persecutions of those that fail to conform to societal standards?), how exactly is "uniqueness" a useful standard? Can not a unique person be mistaken? Or deceptive?
The distinction is granted already. It's never been in dispute. You are avoiding answering the question. Why do you believe Revelations is a mystical text?

n.
1. A ridge or swell moving through or along the surface of a large body of water.
2. A small ridge or swell moving across the interface of two fluids and dependent on surface tension.

What's the point of the question?
I do not seek to deny anyone's beliefs either- I am trying to understand yours. But you asserted the "universiality" of Revelations, and I pointed out that Revelations has no meaning to those of non-J/C/I religions. You have yet to respond clearly to my assertion.


Well, so far the book is cryptic and impenetrable to me. Can you sum up?
Also, could you address the presented questions?


I would hesitate to say that the facts the bible has right are "inherently" correct. And neither does the accuracy of one portion imply that the entire work is correct.

Again, you avoid the question I asked by answering one I didn't. I know why you reject modern psychology, my question was Does the multitude of examples of human mistakes and bias not tend to illustrate that human understanding is flawed and limited?

1) What I understand already is the measure of what I am - Yes or no?
2) That which is not signifigant to myself cannot become signifigant because I cannot understand it - Yes or no?
3) Therefore, I can ignore what has no immediate signifigance to me - Yes or No?


I am not denying there are problems in society. I do ask that you explain yourself when you make broad statements such as "This is what's wrong with society. We don't believe in a motivating life-force. When I do ask for these clarifications, you attack science and materialism, despit the fact I have neither claimed nor invoked either philosophy in this discussion. I understand you do not utilise the scientific method yourself, and I am not holding you to its standards. Of course I "know very little about spirituality"- your brand of it, at least- that is why I am asking questions. May you now please answer those questions?

Were you actually a kitten, in the dream or the spirit world?

I've had dreams so real that I've had to re-orient myself to the waking world when it is over. I have never assumed that they had a reality in and of themselves. How did you come to that conclusion?

Jolly good![/quote]
Again, how did you arrive at this conclusion? Do the dream entities ever provide you with information you could not have access to in waking? What was it's nature?


Is this meaning that you communicated with your Uncle in the dream, or was it a dream entity posing as your uncle? Is it impossible to suppose that this dream was just a reflection of some anxiety about your uncle?


You really do not know anything about me to make assumptions on what I know about myself, do you?
Do I understand your response to say mysticism does acknowledge misapprehension, self-deception, and wishful thinking? If people "can and do become deluded under such practices", how do you avoid it?

This guy. He painted in the 1950's, so he comes a bit after Jung did his signifigant work...
But how do you know what you are working with is what you think?
Erm, you've never been married, then, I take it.
I TALK to her, and her existence can be independantly verified (she talks to others who also talk with me, she moves things around in the house, she can affect the physical world in my absence).
Then why do you? Why write your book?

Yes, very cute. I'm a VW man myself.
Piscivore is very much like herbivore- it means "Fish-eater" in Latin.

Yeah, I already have an Admin account, so I think what I need to do is restrict the "edit" option permission on my day-to-day account, like you say. Then, if I need to edit someone's post, which is rarely necessary, I can switch over to the Admin account and do so there. Thanks!

By the way I patched up the other post the best I could. Feel free to modify it if need be.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

That's the whole point though. If I didn't know what I know, which is unique, how would I be able to recognize it in someone else? It's just like what I said on the JREF Forums thread, that it was more a matter of being in the right place at the right time and lining up "their" observations with mine.

As far as error is concerned that's always a possibility, but I try to remain open to it and correct it whenever it occurs.

No, the problem is, if you wish to view the Bible, specifically the Book of Revelation, from a strictly historical standpoint, then really you have missed the boat. And, if you're not a spiritual person yourself, I don't know if there's much point in trying to explain it to you.

Nevermind, I thought you were saying causing ripples "at" the shore, not "in" the shore.

Exposure to it more than anything else. A tree maintains its roots in the soil, and to the extent that it does, it retains its uniqueness. So, how far does it need to go in order to worship the sun? And so what if I stick close to home with what I know. Are saying I should deny that I have a mother and a father?

Not really, for the most part I can't even remember having written it. But if you follow this link it might address some of it?

Boy, you sure ask a lot of questions don't you? And what questions were you referring to here?


To be continued ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Absolutely.

Sure it does. This is why I suggest you need look no further than the field of modern psychology.

A "qualified" no to all the above. In the sense that I don't rely on my memory so much to ascerain what's in front of my face. It's sort of like taking the training wheels off a bike once you learn how to ride it.

Actually I don't worry about the problems of life so much, because that's not what life is about. I just don't care to have somebody trying to tell me what's going on inside of my head when they have no idea what they're talking about. And, when they begin to speak of the electro-chemical processes that go on inside the brain, it means nothing to me.

Yes.

This is a by-product of your education. If science tells you to go around with blinders on so you don't admit anything inadmissable, then you go around with blinders on, right? It's funny how that works isn't it?

This is a lot like asking what it's like to be a fish when occasionally you go out for a swim. No, usually dreams are too dis-jointed to gain much coherence from them. Not all of them though. However, mine usually invovle some sort of sorting out process, like the dream above (page 1).

No, it was another entity. While it's possible I may have been thinking about my cousin prior to that which, would have evoked the dream about my uncle. However the entity was real. Did you read the thread that I started about the Collective Unconscious?


To be continued ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

That's a two-way street.

It's called "live and learn."

Actually I really don't consider myself a student of Jung. Most of what I understand of him is what I've heard from other people, which isn't to say I don't agree with what I've heard.

It's sort of like walking. You put one foot in front of the other ...

All I'm trying to do is say there are varying degrees to what you understand. And, the more intimate you are with something, the more significance it will have. And no, I haven't been married before.

Because nobody knows what I know, and it might be important. If I didn't think there was something unique about it I wouldn't have wasted my time. But then again it's the uniqueness which causes people to reject it, because they don't have the grounds by which to accept it. This is one reason why I can hardly remember writing it, because I can't spend much time dwelling on it. There's no one to discuss it with.

Hmm ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

So, essentially, they told you what you were ready to believe?

By what process do you identify and correct errors?


What I am trying to determine here is why you do not view it from a historical standpoint. And you might be surprised at what I understand. Try me. If I do not, I'll ask another question.


You have really lost me here. How does a tree having roots make it "unique"- doesn't every tree? Or is the word you are reaching for "individuality" (the words do not have the same meaning)? I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say a tree "worships" the sun, but that's picking nits. In any case, I fail to see how any of this relates to Revelations being meaningless outside of the montheist worldview.


Heh, that's how I learn.

You have repeatedly stated that mysicism is akin to the "Kingdom of heaven", and that it exists within human beings, yet have also stated that human beings are subjective and flawed. How do you reconcile this?

Is "heaven" not by definition "perfect"?

What does "perfect" mean, anyway?

Indeed.

I thought you didn't agree with psychology after Jung?

Did you retain knowledge of being human?

Once again, you've chosen to attack science when I have not mentioned it, rather than answer a question. Notwithstanding the fact that said characterisation of science has been debated ad nauseum over on JREF, it is not relevant to the question asked. What leads you to the conclusion that images in your dreams have a separate, independant existance from your mind?


I don't even know where to BEGIN with that thread, other that to ask if you have opted to disagree with physics as well?

If you mean in the sense that I found myself in the position where I was ready to accept what they had to say? Yes.

Actually I don't spend so much time trying to establish anything new, but rather validate what I already know. For example I may draw a correlation to something, and have good grounds to believe it's correct or, sometimes it's just a sneaky suspicion, and yet I don't try to fill in anything more than what seems plausible, based upon what I already understand. So, when the time comes that I'm able to corroborate it, it's amazing how accurate it can be. In fact I think a fair assessment would be well over 90%. It's a lot like filling out a cross-word puzzle, where you begin by filling in the words you already know, and try deducing the rest from that. And, to the degree that you're familiar with what you're working with, it's that much easier to look up and validate.

Of course if I do make any mistakes it ususally has something to do with transcribing a date or a name, or something of that nature incorrectly. For which reason I like to validate my ideas by at least one other verifiable source. Aside from that, it's more a matter of being open to the possibility of mistakes, as well as taking into account other people's criticism which, I try to incorporate if I find it to be valid.

Since I have already mentioned the Reformation and the Roman Catholic Church, in accord with the onset of the Age of Enlightenment, it's obvious that I believe it in the historical aspect. In which case it becomes a matter of whose historical aspect we're referring to here. I'm merely questioning whether someone can draw a strictly historical perspective from that which is highly symbolic, to say the least, not without contemplating the significance of that which conceived of it which, by most accounts is mystical. And if in fact this was the case, as I'm inclined to believe, then it stands to reason that it won't be fully disclosed, in the manner of the visionary who received it, except to someone for whom it was intended to be disclosed, a mystic in other words. Hey, if I didn't believe such things were possible, then I would have no grounds by which to base my claim.

Of course that isn't to say one can't conclude such possibilities exist by gleening through Swedenborg's materials. If, for no other reason that he does a very good job of explaining his point of view.

I'm saying it doesn't need to be understood worldwide in order for it to be Universal, by virtue of the fact that life itself is unique. In other words the Center of Existence is always in the here and now, no matter where you are. In which case it doesn't matter whose or what relgion you accept, so long as you understand this. Did you get a chance to read Joseph Campbell's, Vision of Black Elk?

Heh, that's how I learn too. Except that in my case it rarely involves picking someone elses brains, mainly because it's a more internalized and I can't expect someone else to answer it for me. Of course that isn't to say there aren't a whole myriad of things I don't understand, however, it typically doesn't bother me to leave such things alone until the time that something surfaces to validate it. So for the most part I'm not trying to force the issue here, but rather validate what I already know (as per said above). This is why I say it has more to do with being in the right place at the right time.

It has more to do with proclivity or, predisposition. In other words there are those who are predisposed towards the life of heaven.

Heaven is only perfect in the sense that it reaches towards the only one true ideal, which is God. In other words it's relative, and varies from a state of greater perfection, to a state of lesser perfection, depending upon its proximity to God.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Are you sure you're not being facetious here? Just as I was being facetious in my reply?

As I have suggested elsewhere I believe, to understand something, i.e., through working with it (hands-on experience), is not the same the thing as having knowledge of something, for example just reading about it in a textbook.

There used to be a time when I was very concerned about the problems of life, however, through my discovery of the mystical approach which, is more a matter of living one day at a time really, this has become a means by which to answer that.

No, because Science doesn't know the least bit about that which is spiritual.

As far as explaining the physical processes which involve the natural world, I have no qualms about Science's ability to do this. However, it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of human experience which, is wholly transcendent of the mechanical realm. In fact I think Science is full of it if it thinks it can pin these things down strictly to the electro-chemical processes which go on inside the brain. How easy it is to forget that people have a life and are capable of experiencing it of their own accord, whether it entails the Scientific Approach or not. Sorry, I have a life of my own, and it doesn't involve accepting things just because it's become the norm by which things are accepted.

In answer to your question, yes, because Science has done nothing but merely explain that which has occurred after the fact. In other words Science did not invent the law of gravity.

I perceived myself as who I am, except that I experienced being picked up as if I were a little kitten which, the woman who picked me up thought I was. So in this respect it was the woman who had ascendancy in the situation (not me).

I used to think that these were demons, which caused me all kinds of problems for at least twelve years, with all the nightmares I had on a nightly basis, which effectively tied my hands behind my back with my ability to deal with deal with. It wasn't until after I discovered these were other beings, not unlike myself (through the works of Swedenborg), that I began to normalize my relations with them, and treat them as if they were human, and began to reconstruct my life ... which was after I had reached the complete state of decline I refer to in chapter 5.

Well you have to understand one thing here, that if a spiritual world does exist, then there must be a means by which it is connected to the material world. So in that sense this is all I'm trying to provide, a plausible explanation.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Yes, but learn how?


Nice. You certainly implied that you were ("The fact that we're speaking of the unconscious mind suggests it has nothing to do with the "objective world." Are you at all familiar with Carl Jung?"" Now it would seem that I am far more familiar with him than you are. Isn't it dishonest in the extreme to claim his ideas support yours, when you have no idea at all what his ideas are? What you've "heard from other people" may have been miscommunicated or misunderstood by them, right? Because people are subjective and error prone, yes? Have you read any of his work? Have you read Campbell's?

When we began this discussion, you mentioned having done "research"- can you please clarify what this entails for you?

So, you think you are working with a "spiritual world", so you just assume that you are, right? How would you know if you were wrong?


You are using a linguistic shell game here- I can be "intimate" (have sexual intercourse with) with a woman without being "intimate" (possesing a deep familiarity with) with her.

And one can have understanding of something, or think that they do, and be wrong- Colombus was more familiar with the West Indies than any other European of his time- yet he was wrong about where he thought he was. Extending your "marriage" analogy- I can be familiar with my wife, yet if I am mistaken in my understanding of her we'll end in divorce court. And it does happen. Or do you deny that people can be mistaken in their assumptions?

I'm not sure where you think signifigance enters into this- My wife is certainly more signifigant to me than she is to you, but that doesn't mean she exists less for you.


Well, those are the best reasons to write anything. You sholdn't worry about people "rejecting" it- nobody's written the book yet that everyone agrees with- that is just something that as a writer you have to accept. It's "uniqueness" however is not the immediate problem I see- it is the poor structure. By the size of your forum it seems you do have people to discuss it with- and what am I, chopped liver?


No special signifigance here- I just like to eat fish.

Isn't this self-defeating? Isn't this like only seeking examples that demonstrate addition and subtraction, and pretending algebra doesn't exist- or just "disagreeing" with it? Using your crossword analogy- what happens when you run across a word you don't know? just squeeze something in that doesn't fit the clue, or may not even be a real word at all? How is that learning?


How is "being open to the possibility of mistakes" useful in identifying them? How can you be certain your ideas do not contain mistakes you have not identified? Given that you seem to have said earlier you just took a third party's interpretation of Jung's theories at face value, what do you do to "validate" your ideas?


Just because the Reformation and the Enlightenment are historical periods, does not make your interpretation a "historical" one. What I mean when I say "historical interpretation" is taking into acount the time & place it was written, the literary traditions of that time- including comparative analysis of other apocalyptic literature of the time- and the sociopolitical forces active at that time.

Well, apparently I can, as I (and others) have done. In the case of this perspective, the "signifigance" is that of a coded warning to churches in Asia Minor that the Emperor was actively killing Christians and would soon be spreading that practise to the rest of the Empire, and including some cheerleading that the church would eventualy prevail when their messiah returned.

One "visionary" writes down something that is so obscured in symbolism that it takes another "visionary" to interpret it? What kind of a communication system is that? What would the point be of this communication? why could not the first visionary communicate the idea in plainer terms, as the second visionary apparently can? If the "vision" cannot be interpreted until after the event it predicts, then what value is it?
As you are fond of saying- absolutely

I can "conclude" the possibility that Wonderland exists by "gleaning", as you say, the works of Lewis Carroll. that doesn't make it so.

I'll address the Joseph Campbell a bit later- I've got to get my copy of "Power of Myth" back from my mother. For now, please explain what you mean by the statement "life itself is 'unique'"- I don't think you use that word the same way I do.
Heh, Gollum philosophy: "Precious, what is the meaning of life?" "Well, my precious, since this question is entirely internal, it's anything we want! And since we never ask anyone else anything, We're always right, precious!"

Seriously, though- how does new information enter the system?

How do you "validate" something that you don't understand in the first place? "Oh, that sounds good, yeah, I'll believe that!"?
See above.


Sorry, "lesser perfection"? If something is "perfect", isn't that an absolute?

What defines an "Ideal" god? Are there other "Ideal" things, trees, cars, women?

You will have to clarify your distinction between "understanding" and "knowledge", because in my dictionaries they are synonyms.

Well, I can certainly see how that would be true, since from what you've told me so far it seems mysticism is basically a "head-in-the-sand" approach for you. Like a man wearing a blindfold so he can deny that colours exist. Please do correct me if I am mistaken.
Of course it doesn't; a scientist would be the first one to tell you that. But why do you assume that your mental processes are spiritual and not psychological?


You do understand what "wholly trancendant" means, right? Do you eat? Drive a car? Have sex?


Well, you've been told this before at JREF, and I don't want to rehash it here as this is your turf and I'm trying to keep things on your terms, but "accepting things just because it's become the norm by which things are accepted" is dogma, not science, and no honest scientist would ever imagine insisting on something like that. Disagreement is essential to the pursuit of knowledge.
Well of course not, whoever suggested otherwise. The scientists working in this field do not pretend they are "inventing" anything, they are simply observing and recording, and trying to explain what they see.

In fact, some of the most widely held assumtions about how we remember things are being challenged at this very moment, because scientists are observing effects that the old models do not explain.

But like I said, I'm not here to push this issue- you hear lots of this sort of thing on JREF- so if you want to let this one drop, that's fine with me.


Did you have access to this woman's thoughts? What do you mean by "ascendancy"?

I do not see how believing the dream images are demons and believing them to be "other, more human" beings is substantially different. May I suggest these images are aspects of your personality you find less than savoury, and by "normalising" your relationship with them you are in fact integrating these elements back into your personality, and that is the reason you are now able to "reconstruct" your life?

Too bad you haven't read Jung, because this is exactly the interpretation his theory actually puts forth.


Well, you have to understand; that's a pretty farking big "IF".

Essentially, that's correct: IF a sprirtual world exists, there WOULD have to be some connextion to the physical world. I say keep looking for an explanation- but in order for anyone else to take you seriously, you have to be able to admit where and when you might be wrong, don't you think? A lot of "plausible", but wrong, ideas have come and gone, after all.

If I don't know something that certainly doesn't mean I can't think about it, in fact this is how I develop new ideas. However, like I said, I don't typically fill in the blank until I have further evidence to back it up.

Not just a third party, but Robert A. Johnson.

Hence the implication that religion is nothing more than politics. Which to me is a sign that a religion has lost its validation and has drawn to a close. Which, I don't suppose says a whole lot about the Roman Catholic Church, except that maybe it is the great "political harlot" Revelation makes it out to be?

Yes, and I can see that we've only begun to scratch the surface here.

And what pray tell would be the difference between this and your "coded messages" above?

Oh, do you mean like the difference between what "is" and what will never be?

Without life, everything else is inanimate and dead.

Well let's just say things have a tendency to crop up no matter what you do, if nothing else in your day to day life.

Actually, once you've discovered something that works, you can't help but have new discoveries like this, on a continual basis even.

Well, if the sun wasn't more absolute than the earth (gravity-wise), would the earth revolve around it?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Oops, looks like I missed this one.

You don't believe life itself is the teacher or, does learning entail sitting for eight hours a day in the classroom?

Geez, with all this over-analyzing of everything, at what point are you going to take time out and experience one or two things?

How lame of you to say.

Of course most women would probably beg to differ with you here.

And why should you be so concerned whether I'm right or wrong if, it wasn't wholly a matter of disbelief on your part?

However, it has nothing to do with an intimate understanding of each other, right?

No, for the most part people come here to debate their own views, regardless of whether they think I have any views of my own. And, just about the time they realize I do and, that I'm not going to be changing them any time soon, is just about the time that they pack up and leave. So, whether I've written a book or not has little or nothing to do with it. Hey, maybe my approach is wrong, but what else can I speak from except the standpoint of what I know?

How about fish liver?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Well, if for no other reason to show us there's a plan and, that it's essentially up to God to determine what that plan entails. In other words God is in charge. And perhaps illustrating how people are subject to all kinds of beliefs, regardless of what's true.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

What's the difference between reading about your favorite recipe and actually preparing it and eating it? You certainly can't eat the pages out of the text can you? Somehow I don't think it will taste the same.

Yes, even science employs the use of filters in its research. How else would we have selectivity then, without filters and understanding how to use them?

And why should I have the same last name as my father?

Can you define what any of this means outside of your mind? No, in which case the mind is a separate entity from the mechanics.

And yet how is that we can come to acknowledge anything? How do we inherently know 1 + 1 = 2? And, when's the last time Science has tried examining the nature of the Holy Spirit which, teaches us the nature of all things? ~ John 14:26

I'll be darned, so it's really nothing more than studying and observing things? Sounds like something which is strictly a human phenomenon if you ask me. In which case why should Science have exclusive rights over it? Are you saying people are incapable of making observations for themselves? If not, then why is it so important to have Science back it up? Does that make it any less objective then? And what about those things which Science is incapable of tackling, like the human spirit for example?

And yet why should I care about the assumptions other people make? I have plenty of assumptions to make with respect to my own observations.

Have you had the chance to read my signature over at the JREF Forums?

No, but I actually had one dream, where this woman was looking at me from afar, evaluating my every move, and I could hear every single thing she was thinking. And I was thinking, "Man, we're going to be getting together real soon here!"

The key here is "normalize," because I was feeding power to my fears and the lack of control I had over them. Now, whether this helps to further illustrate if these were spirits or not is another story but, it does illustrate the need to treat them with some degree of humanness. Albeit it did give me the golden opportunity to study the nature of my own fear which, is what I ultimately learned how to conquer.

Too bad my brain is only so large, and capable of holding only so much information. Besides, what is information (in a book) compared to the actual experience?

While I understand that Jung was a very hands-on person and wouldn't have it any other way.

So what difference does it make whether it's true or not to you? Hey, isn't this basically why people hung someone up on a cross over 2,000 years ago? Because they didn't have the capacity to receive what He had to say? This is what I took it to mean anyway.

Well if only I hadn't been there to see it, then maybe I woudn't be burdened with trying to explain it.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Okay, I was misunderstanding your position. Do you actively seek out new ideas at all?

Not the Robert A Johnson!? Heh.

I had never heard of this guy before. I got the book you reference from the library last night, and so far I'm not terribly impressed. He seems to have the intellectual integrity of a Harry Wormwood. Maybe it'll get better. I will say on first glance he seems to have the wrong idea about archetypes, though.

In the meantime, how about those questions?

How is "being open to the possibility of mistakes" useful in identifying them?
How can you be certain your ideas do not contain mistakes you have not identified?
How do you validate your ideas?

I'm really not sure what you are getting at here, except maybe to twist my point to support yours. As far as the the church of Rome, I will agree that ideologies do sometimes lose their validity- as do secular philosophies and ideas. That is a cultural process that has been noted many times throughout history. But, one can characterize ANY group, indiviual, or creed as the "Whore"- that once again does not make it so. The words "political harlot" do not appear anywhere within that text, either, so shouldn't be in quotes.

In what way? You said you questioned if it was possible, and I said it is possible because I have done it.


Because the coded message would be meant to convey specific, relevant, timely information ("Don't trust the emporer's people, they are coming to kill you") in language intended to be understood by the recipients of the message but not others. The mystical message seems to be open to wide interpretation and does not seem to be relevant or at all useful, and without a specific intended recipient. If I am wrong, please clarify.

Why would god need to use a ~1600 year long parlour trick to demonstrate he has a "plan"? Why not just spell it out for us?

Heh, no I did not. More like what's not, and what ain't either.

Heh. "Stairway" :roll:

That statement is meaningless. Just as well to say "Without light, everything else is dark." What is "unique" about life? Is there a discrete "thing" that is life, or is it just a statement of condition?


But how do you check if something is true or just what you want to hear?




Whatever does "more absolute (gravity-wise)" mean?

The Earth revolves around the sun because the sun's mass is sufficiently larger than the Earth's mass as to cause the centre of mass for the pair to be near the sun's centre. The sun revolves around the galactic centre for the same reason, as does the moon around Earth.

What does this have to do with your "Ideal god"- or are you claiming the Sun is that god?

Why does it have to be either/or? And why leave out the multitude of other methods by which one may obtain knowledge?

With all this unfounded mis-characterization of me to avoid direct questions, when are you going to take time out to answer anything?


That's a valid question- what is "lame" about it?


In order to "differ" with this statement, one would have to deny the occurence of casual sex, one-night stands, and rape. I did not make any value judgements about it (I didn't say it was good OR bad). If you meant "most women" would not agree that this was appropriate behaviour, I can only respond by pointing out that women like sex too.


Well, it's not a matter of belief or disbelief on MY part, I am attempting to learn. And I'm not concerned with whether you are right or wrong at this point. I am trying to determine your criterea.

No, it does not. I can replace "wife" in that statement with "van" or "lawn" or "niece" or "tax return" or just about anything and have it be equally true (adjusting the pronouns, naturally).


Well, I think that if they are wanting to debate, then they certainly think you have view of your own, else there's not much debate, is there?

By "poor structure" I wasn't so much speaking of your "approach", as just the purely technical aspects of the writing.

We live in the Age of Information, and I don't seek to cram any more information into my head than I have to, because that's all it is. This is what they have computers for. Hey, within the last seven years I've learned how to design web pages, work with Java Script and become the Administrator over this Forum. And, while it may not be a whole variety of things, it still shows my willingness to learn as I go.

I think there might be something to be said about it coming across as a bit too slick, but I think that has more to do with the publisher than anything else. I've actually had correspondence with Robert A. Johnson, and he doesn't write that way.

Life is self-validating.

That's only because there wasn't much of a political arena besides what went on in the Church back in those days.

What I'm trying to say is that if you look at religion strictly from a historical standpoint, without the inherent mystery -- hence in the mystical sense-- then it's a wholly superficial approach.

Sure it's open to wide interpretion, but that's only because most people don't understand mysticism and aren't looking for that kind of an answer. But, that's not my problem.

Heh ...

What's unique about life for me is that I'm aware that I exist. And I will continue to do so until someone puts a bullet in my head.

Are you saying people are incapable of validating their own experience? Hey if I don't validate it then who's going to do it for me? I certainly can't wait around 300 years for someone else (science) to come up with an answer can I?

If the earth was bigger than the sun would the sun revolve around it?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?