It's Sunday. I just finished livestream from http://www.citychurchfamily.org/ where I also enjoy hearing my oldest son play keyboard. The message, one I truly need to hear and heed, was on justice, mercy and faith, also, on becoming trustworthy, looking out for and being FOR people; Love God Love our neighbors -- asks: how we are in our relationship with God and how we are in relationship with people. The latter sounds like the positive sentiment you express/ed in a recent post in this thread encouraging good relations between people (minimizing the judgements and hypocrisy that people and our organizations also have the tendency to express).
I am somewhat mesmerized by JR3's mantra on love-fear, or how fear grows from love,etc., yet I wonder where that rather new age imagery can get us? How does that acknowledge and honor God?
I say, mesmerized, but more so, I don't quite buy that "I/we are God" mainly because that has not been my experience. Also, if you consider the cycles and food chains and patterns of metamorphoses within nature, from our perspective, how reasonable is it that we get to our position and assume that the (nesting) pattern stops and that, AFTER we hear the original story, ~we conclude that we, individually and separately are the beginning and end?
For my money, and my soul, that self-centered transposition is simply not true. Of course, I admit that in 1980 I turned to and did that thing you may have heard about: accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. Yes, I can also acknowledge the apparent irrationality of such an action. But also, consequently, since then, over the long term I have seen and experienced changes in my life and behavior that align within the accounts presented by other followers of Christ. So, irrational or not, from my experience, there is truth in the belief and in the expectation and inclination and the commitment, however weak and vacillating, as in my case, my implementation of it is.
It is also true, since the two roads do diverge in the woods, that to experiment with the other consciousness study alternative, I'd need to recant and/or make a different decision or set of decisions. And even then, if you can entertain God as yet another ~objective truth, another level of nested fields within nested fields, then WHAT one individual decides can also be a bit irrelevant. That is, our particular level of organization is important in the nested fields within nested fields, but ours is not necessarily or certainly yet in control of all reality, particularly from beginning to end.
So the entire matter of faith is a challenging horse of a different color and love, I believe, is a many-splendored thing.
What I do like about JR3's mantra and please note my own self-centering here, is the analog between his "love begetting fear..." imagery and the observation that I express about repulsion being attraction with one-half spin and vise versa. My observation can be demonstrated empirically and within physical intuition with two rod magnets in short order, and. of course, we all sort of associate love with attraction and fear with repulsion. But does the glib generality about "love" and/or "fear" hold?
My impression is, again with love as a many-splendored thing, is, that while the glib generality may be indicative and similar to the repulsion being attraction with one-half spin, as you point out about fear being a helpful indicator of danger, and happiness and joy being present/magnified when shared, or if you somehow strike a smooth, balanced equilibria on just the right concentration of oxytocin, there are always other factors and features that impinge in the experience and the assessment. These multi-dimensional structured~dualities are standard features of life of nested fields within nested fields.
There may be a connection between this type of sentiment and simply observing that we are essentially ALWAYS running, parsing or balancing multiple (sensory) equations. Part of un/sub/conscious processing is simply acquiring/maintaining a ~balance.
We may be over-powered by our dominant visual or auditory or other sensation, for example, but the so-called consciousness is generally always parsing all the ~five+ sensory+ streams plus all relevant associated memorabilia. True to form in a nested fields within nested fields system, the given is multi-dimensional -- complex , as is our recognition and processing of and within it.
In the trial theory I am presenting, perhaps just for simplicity sake, I assume and project that ~five+ sensories are all translated and processed in the one single underlying tactile internal analog language, leading to some ~active balancing response.
Thus, perhaps readers may track on my interests in nested attraction-repulsion, nested hydrogen-bonding, metabolic and enzymatic equilibria, plus the genetic and epigenetic and protein-synthesis/folding structural coding.
Some time or place after an event/observation/reaction, potentially, we may create a partial report of key elements or features of the event/reaction. Is such a verbal re-creation complete or entirely accurate? No. Not really. It is transformed into word-full, sound-full and perhaps visual symbols WHILE concurrently, if you notice, being forged and structurally coded internally into various useful forms and memorabilia.
Similarly, in a nested fields within nested fields system, is the benefit of considering and adopting common spiritual understandings.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
http://frostscientific.com
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
---In general_theory@yahoogroups.com,
I' sorry Joseph,
I
feel like I am missing your point. Yes, love can engender fear of
loss. That makes sense. Cortisol and Oxytocin modulate each others'
effects to a certain extent.
Perhaps
you are saying that this fear is not good. But that can't be right
because fear helps us survive; we evolved fear to support survival.
Maybe you are just talking about the fear of losing love. But even that
encourages us to grow our love so we don't lose the object of our
affection.
Maybe
I am looking it from a good/bad perspective when that dichotomy is not
applicable. After all, who can say if something is ultimately good or
bad. From a subjective point of view we make these judgements, but
objectively, who can say?
From: "Joseph Rouse joseph.rouse3@... [general_theory]"
To: general_theory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [general_theory] Re: Objectivity versus subjectivity
Errol,
>Errol wrote: These are uplifting concepts.
JR3 wrote: Yes, they are.
>Errol
wrote: I wish I could believe them. But the idea of a God who lives to
show love to his creation seems to have a basis in our desire to be
valued.
JR3
wrote: Your 2 comments, "These are uplifting concepts."vs. "But the
idea of a God who lives to show love to his creation seems to have a
basis in our desire to be valued." remind me of a little story about
thinking, and how we think.
Every
human thought, and every human action, is based in either love or fear.
Your first comment is love, the second is the product of fear. Your
thoughts, and consequently your experiences, produces repeat experience
after repeat experience. You become uplifted, and then cynical, one idea
following the other. Always there is the swing from one emotion to the
other. Love sponsors fear sponsors love sponsors fear…This is reflected
in your comments.
I
have observed myself doing this constantly. I call it going to the dark
side. If you are attentive to your thoughts, you can also see the
pattern.
And
the reason is found in the first lie—the lie which you hold as the
truth about God—that God cannot be trusted, that God’s love cannot be
depended upon; that God’s acceptance of you is conditional; that the
ultimate outcome is thus in doubt. For if you cannot depend on God’s
love to always be there, on whose love can you depend?
… And so it is that in the moment you pledge your highest love, you greet your greatest fear.
If
you are attentive to your thoughts, the first thing you worry about
after saying “I love you” is whether you’ll hear it back. And if you
hear it back, then you begin immediately to worry that the love you have
just found, you will lose. And so all action becomes a reaction—defense
against loss—even as you seek to defend yourself against the loss of
God.
Are you defending yourself against the loss of God, by not trusting God?
>Errol
wrote: Universal love is a wonderful concept and likely a way out of
all the human problems we see around us. But it's not yet practicable
in an evolutionary world driven by survival of the fittest.
JR3: O.K. See? You just did it again.
>Errol
wrote: Humans have to kill to eat; to survive. Where is the love in
that? Are the wheat stalk and the grapevine loving in dying for our
betterment, or is their desire for life thwarted by our desire for life?
JR3:
There was an earlier time when the sheep was an integral part of life
on a farm. Consider the possibility that the sheep is quite aware of its
role. The sheep exists, has life, because of the farmer. The sheep
knows he has value to the farmer and the farmer's family. The sheep has a
life with meaning and purpose. The sheep is cared for knowing all the
time that its physical life is limited, and that the spirit of the sheep
will continue to exist after the death of its physical body. Just like
us.
Hence,
(I am switching to the dark side) the industrialization of meat, the
production of meat that grants the animal no quality of life is, I
believe, nothing short of cruel. And so, for 40 years I have been a
vegetarian. Our gluttonous appetite for meat is, I believe, going to
come back and hurt us, through the inefficient use of our available
natural resources, depleting the soil, and making food prohibitively
expensive, etc. This extends to the wheat. The wheat, the sheep, and the
grape love us unconditionally. When we recognize that we are a part of
nature, a not apart from nature, our own quality of life will continue
to be degraded.
>Errol
wrote: In accepting a belief system, we seem to take all the
possibilities for good that are in ourselves and put them in God's
purview. It releases us from personal responsibility for meeting all
the needs out there. But if we take the opposite view and live for the
contribution we can make in alleviating the evil in the world, and
meditate on it to effect changes in our brain structure and epigenetic
changes in our genome, we are on the way to creating the God that we
want to believe in.
JR3: See? You did it again. Love sponsors fear sponsors love sponsors fear...
>Errol
wrote: Sensual information is recorded inside our heads. We use it to
guide our actions to achieve outcomes which have proved salutary in the
past. We become very proficient at killing to survive. Now we feel a
higher need; to be valued by our peers. Things like love and loyalty
emerge. But the baser instincts of the evolutionary world still
intrude, and jealousy and greed appear; 'Why am I not appreciated as
much as him?' But we remember what comes of such feelings, and, albeit
slowly, we learn.
JR3 wrote: Am I wrong, or did you just speak in polar terms out of fear and then love?
>Errol
wrote: In the end we come to see that what we need most is each other.
No success is a success unless we see others appreciate it and value us
for it. No happiness is available to a single person. Humanity
functions as a unit, just like the trillions of cells in our bodies
function as a unit. With greater cooperation, a nation becomes a
functional unit. With greater cooperation, the world becomes a
functional unit. Until eventually, we hone our cooperation to the point
where we lose ourselves, where we have become the perfectly selfless
loving God that we desire so greatly.
JR3: Yes. We are God, experiencing. See. You already know that. Now you can experience it if you choose.
>Errol wrote: Well, just saying, since things have taken a turn toward spirituality.
JR3: its about time.
Joseph
On Friday, July 17, 2015 12:13 PM, "Errol McKenzie errolmacky@...
[general_theory]" wrote:
These
are uplifting concepts. I wish I could believe them. But the idea of a
God who lives to show love to his creation seems to have a basis in our
desire to be valued.
Universal
love is a wonderful concept and likely a way out of all the human
problems we see around us. But it's not yet practicable in an
evolutionary world driven by survival of the fittest. Humans have to
kill to eat; to survive. Where is the love in that? Are the wheat
stalk and the grapevine loving in dying for our betterment, or is their
desire for life thwarted by our desire for life?
In
accepting a belief system, we seem to take all the possibilities for
good that are in ourselves and put them in God's purview. It releases
us from personal responsibility for meeting all the needs out there.
But
if we take the opposite view and live for the contribution we can make
in alleviating the evil in the world, and meditate on it to effect
changes in our brain structure and epigenetic changes in our genome, we
are on the way to creating the God that we want to believe in.
Sensual
information is recorded inside our heads. We use it to guide our
actions to achieve outcomes which have proved salutary in the past. We
become very proficient at killing to survive. Now we feel a higher
need; to be valued by our peers. Things like love and loyalty emerge.
But the baser instincts of the evolutionary world still intrude, and
jealousy and greed appear; 'Why am I not appreciated as much as him?'
But we remember what comes of such feelings, and, albeit slowly, we
learn.
In
the end we come to see that what we need most is each other. No
success is a success unless we see others appreciate it and value us for
it. No happiness is available to a single person. Humanity functions
as a unit, just like the trillions of cells in our bodies function as a
unit. With greater cooperation, a nation becomes a functional unit.
With greater cooperation, the world becomes a functional unit. Until
eventually, we hone our cooperation to the point where we lose
ourselves, where we have become the perfectly selfless loving God that
we desire so greatly.
Well, just saying, since things have taken a turn toward spirituality.
From: "Joseph Rouse joseph.rouse3@... [general_theory]"
To: general_theory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: [general_theory] Re: Objectivity versus subjectivity
Thank-you
for those words Keith. Here are others below. So, when we evaluate
comments by Verna and the participants to this exchange, we can use the
following criteria. So, for example, when Verna says, "Still struggling
to articulate my thoughts ...." it is obvious that she is not feeling
clarity. Do any of these posts on this thread about "objectivity" feel
clear, or joyful, or loving, or true ?
The
difficulty is knowing the difference between messages from God and data
from other sources. Discrimination is a simple matter with the
application of a basic rule:
Mine is always your Highest Thought, your Clearest Word, your Grandest Feeling. Anything less is from another source.
Now
the task of differentiation becomes easy, for it should not be
difficult even for the beginning student to identify the Highest, the
Clearest, and the Grandest.
Yet will I give you these guidelines:
The
Highest Thought is always that thought which contains joy. The Clearest
Words are those words which contain truth. The Grandest Feeling is that
feeling which you call love.
Joy, truth, love.
These three are interchangeable, and one always leads to the other. It matters not in which order they are placed.
Truth can be neither proven nor disproven. It just is.
Joseph : )
On Friday, July 17, 2015 2:58 AM, "tillco@... [general_theory]" wrote:
Hi all, about objectivity.
Here then some new age
philosophy from a random book from my shelves
that exposed itself in this mornings' bath.
from Keith B.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paraphrased from
p71 From Creative Love.
Author: Ashton Wylie .
Truth may be defined
as the essence of God or Being that pervades the universe.
Real truth is a state
of being not properly describable with words or appreciable by the mind able to
be connected with by our daemon (spirit).
This (love) essence
pervades the Universe and truth is the recognition of the effect of this
essence in all of life (creation). Connecting with truth is connecting with
this love essence and when that happens Joy explodes into the being. So Joy
truth and love are invisibly connected , each just being an aspect of each
other.
Consider a sphere whereat the core is the source –pure love essence and at the surface we see people
plants and matter that we can see and observe. What is at the surface is this
essence turned into material but retaining the essence from whence it came.
So anything in nature
we should appreciate it as an expression of truth joy and love.
Words can help direct
a person towards the truth but cannot replicate it. The truth has a oneness
about it , so that all things that are of truth are totally integrated and
connected. The truth is an integral part of the Source of the essence.
Stating here that the
experience of truth joy and love is what we are here for, to accomplish so that
we can become co creators in harmony with the universe.
The
creative love is
always there willing to help us individually or collectively , but at
the same
time respecting our choice as to which experience we wish to manifest.
We have the choice on what our state of being is and whether we choose
to live in harmony with the universe or become one with the universe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment