In bryans case it is knowledge. ;)
Am 04.04.2011 08:08 schrieb "ornamentalmind" <ornsmindseyespam@yahoo.com>:
> Rhetorical Q?
>
> On Apr 3, 6:12 pm, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the best way to know god is to know thy self , because hes in us all ,
>> i can see a bit of me in evryone and a bit of evryone in me , in all
>> there is the face of good and evil , comidy and drama , the
>> worst example can serve as the best example , voo doo says god is
>> not good or evil , it is man who uses the power of god[s] to create
>> ether good or evil themselves , to consider the origin as pure
>> and that which emerges as coarse , to be one without knowledge , not
>> traped in the teachings of the sage , like the earth itself , without
>> knowledge , free from the tribulations of self promotion , evry
>> creature born comes from the soil and returnes to the soil , holy
>> land , holy mountains , holy caves , sacrifice of crop and animal ,
>> gods of half man half animal , gods living in trees streems lightning
>> volcanoes , the tiger , dragon , mloth , lion , lamb, crocidile ,
>> elephant , lepord, the stars, god was seen as nature , the earth
>> which was connected with , the heavens , connected with , god
>>
>> the only thing that can be proven or even supported by any evedance ,
>> are those things which are of the earth , ( material world ) how then
>> can any inquiry be made on the speculation of heaven , if that inquiry
>> does not originate through the observation of the earth ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> rigsy03 wrote:
>> > I appreciated your response and will delve into Aristotle- surely he
>> > has a definition of "The Good". The trouble is that good and evil can
>> > be false and masquerade as one another so it takes an informed mind to
>> > recognise them- sometimes- although I think we can often identify them
>> > properly- especially in their extreme manifestations.
>>
>> > Contrary to your opinion that I am an agnostic or my sommersaults
>> > about faith, I do believe in God and pray to Him daily- either via
>> > gratitude or supplication. My beef is with religions that have been
>> > constructed by men and used by men in vicious ways. God is not made in
>> > our image. He is beyond human understanding. Why is this so hard to
>> > see when we must struggle to know ourselves or another?
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 6:33 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > Well Ash, like all words, when applied to something it becomes a 'lie'…
>> > > read: becomes something other than itself.
>>
>> > > Accepting that caveat, I use the term "The Good" in the Platonic way.
>> > > And, since we are talking about Divine Forms here, we move quite
>> > > quickly into mysticism. So, just applying 'rational' terms and
>> > > reasoning let alone simple analogies just won't cut it for a full
>> > > understanding of the notion.
>>
>> > > For those who aren't conversant with this, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good
>>
>> > > As is referenced, it (Good) exceeds being. Looking further down the
>> > > page, it is instructive to note that Parmenides suggests that such
>> > > Forms "must be seen through the mind's eye." Interesting, no?
>>
>> > > In the first handful of years, Mind's Eye was all rational and
>> > > mysticism and religiousness was in general shouted down as being
>> > > worthless at best. I found this a strange and unenlightened view and
>> > > kept pushing the agenda of exploring beyond the 5 senses…often to
>> > > sharp reactions and criticism. Today, perhaps as a result, we have
>> > > moved in general to the other side of the dichotomy of skeptic/
>> > > believer… and many posts are pure blind belief.
>>
>> > > Regardless, when first exposed to the Greek notion of 'The Good', I
>> > > found an innate resonance and have been exploring the associated Pure
>> > > Grounds ever since.
>>
>> > > You asked for my words on this…something quite difficult to present at
>> > > best. I will say that as shown above that The Good is a universal. It
>> > > is objective. It is innate and not of the senses.
>>
>> > > In particular, I was saying in my previous post in response to your
>> > > suggestion that "we seem mostly of little consequence." that "On the
>> > > larger scales, our logic…" is of little or no consequence either…at
>> > > least in any ultimate sense.
>>
>> > > Hopefully this at least approaches a satisfactory response for you.
>>
>> > > On Apr 2, 11:42 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Could you please clarify what is meant by "The Good"? I understand some
>> > > > limitations and pitfalls of logic but knowing that clarifies little in this
>> > > > regard, it's another point agreed on. "The Good" is a term used by many but
>> > > > it makes little sense to me, perhaps I am uninitiated, it seems mostly
>> > > > arbitrary. But I would like your take on it if you please.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
> Rhetorical Q?
>
> On Apr 3, 6:12 pm, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the best way to know god is to know thy self , because hes in us all ,
>> i can see a bit of me in evryone and a bit of evryone in me , in all
>> there is the face of good and evil , comidy and drama , the
>> worst example can serve as the best example , voo doo says god is
>> not good or evil , it is man who uses the power of god[s] to create
>> ether good or evil themselves , to consider the origin as pure
>> and that which emerges as coarse , to be one without knowledge , not
>> traped in the teachings of the sage , like the earth itself , without
>> knowledge , free from the tribulations of self promotion , evry
>> creature born comes from the soil and returnes to the soil , holy
>> land , holy mountains , holy caves , sacrifice of crop and animal ,
>> gods of half man half animal , gods living in trees streems lightning
>> volcanoes , the tiger , dragon , mloth , lion , lamb, crocidile ,
>> elephant , lepord, the stars, god was seen as nature , the earth
>> which was connected with , the heavens , connected with , god
>>
>> the only thing that can be proven or even supported by any evedance ,
>> are those things which are of the earth , ( material world ) how then
>> can any inquiry be made on the speculation of heaven , if that inquiry
>> does not originate through the observation of the earth ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> rigsy03 wrote:
>> > I appreciated your response and will delve into Aristotle- surely he
>> > has a definition of "The Good". The trouble is that good and evil can
>> > be false and masquerade as one another so it takes an informed mind to
>> > recognise them- sometimes- although I think we can often identify them
>> > properly- especially in their extreme manifestations.
>>
>> > Contrary to your opinion that I am an agnostic or my sommersaults
>> > about faith, I do believe in God and pray to Him daily- either via
>> > gratitude or supplication. My beef is with religions that have been
>> > constructed by men and used by men in vicious ways. God is not made in
>> > our image. He is beyond human understanding. Why is this so hard to
>> > see when we must struggle to know ourselves or another?
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 6:33 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > Well Ash, like all words, when applied to something it becomes a 'lie'…
>> > > read: becomes something other than itself.
>>
>> > > Accepting that caveat, I use the term "The Good" in the Platonic way.
>> > > And, since we are talking about Divine Forms here, we move quite
>> > > quickly into mysticism. So, just applying 'rational' terms and
>> > > reasoning let alone simple analogies just won't cut it for a full
>> > > understanding of the notion.
>>
>> > > For those who aren't conversant with this, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good
>>
>> > > As is referenced, it (Good) exceeds being. Looking further down the
>> > > page, it is instructive to note that Parmenides suggests that such
>> > > Forms "must be seen through the mind's eye." Interesting, no?
>>
>> > > In the first handful of years, Mind's Eye was all rational and
>> > > mysticism and religiousness was in general shouted down as being
>> > > worthless at best. I found this a strange and unenlightened view and
>> > > kept pushing the agenda of exploring beyond the 5 senses…often to
>> > > sharp reactions and criticism. Today, perhaps as a result, we have
>> > > moved in general to the other side of the dichotomy of skeptic/
>> > > believer… and many posts are pure blind belief.
>>
>> > > Regardless, when first exposed to the Greek notion of 'The Good', I
>> > > found an innate resonance and have been exploring the associated Pure
>> > > Grounds ever since.
>>
>> > > You asked for my words on this…something quite difficult to present at
>> > > best. I will say that as shown above that The Good is a universal. It
>> > > is objective. It is innate and not of the senses.
>>
>> > > In particular, I was saying in my previous post in response to your
>> > > suggestion that "we seem mostly of little consequence." that "On the
>> > > larger scales, our logic…" is of little or no consequence either…at
>> > > least in any ultimate sense.
>>
>> > > Hopefully this at least approaches a satisfactory response for you.
>>
>> > > On Apr 2, 11:42 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Could you please clarify what is meant by "The Good"? I understand some
>> > > > limitations and pitfalls of logic but knowing that clarifies little in this
>> > > > regard, it's another point agreed on. "The Good" is a term used by many but
>> > > > it makes little sense to me, perhaps I am uninitiated, it seems mostly
>> > > > arbitrary. But I would like your take on it if you please.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment