Causeless

[Ocre]

Self-Realisation is not an effect to a certain cause. (All points at the same, but every road-sign is ‘it’ as well…)

No matter how matters seem related (" realising thinker is thought (cause) will blatantly show how a view depends on desire to be a certain way."(effect..), every thought, feeling and image appears without any interference from anyone and appears in the same Unchanging Awareness.

It does not matter whether this is, or is not recognised for it to appear in that same “dream of Unchanging Awareness”, it does not matter how “Wholeness” might appear not to be, for it to never be lacking.
…And this does not mean some kind of conclusion follows, as if this conclusion might appear from a better place…;-)

The meaninglessness of meaning, the plot in the dream, it is so breathtakingly beautiful in diversion, possibilities, limitlessness…
How 'I' (as in “That”) surprise mySelf in endless awe of how 'I' might appear…!

:-)

[sahyo]

ocre :)

it does not matter how “Wholeness” might appear not to be, for it to never be lacking.

isn't 'about' lacking or not lacking

the plot in the dream

plot? :blink: ....the thread is titled "Causeless"

How 'I' (as in “That”) surprise mySelf in endless awe of how 'I' might appear…!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ocre]

It says just that, all says only and just ‘that’.

It isn’t about ‘any-thing’, but this 'nothingness' happens through all manifestation.

The plot in the dream is for instance how ‘Asheera’ asks questions as if any written word might point better or worse… <_< the ‘plot’ is any form of meaning that seems to appear in the dream.

:-)

[sahyo]

:lol:

no

[Ocre]

Again Asheera, when what is said/written can’t find a common ground as to ‘meaning’, it is like hearing Portuguese and answering in Chinese.

:blink:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 2 2003, 08:29 AM
Again Asheera, when what is said/written can’t find a common ground as to ‘meaning’, it is like hearing Portuguese and answering in Chinese.

:blink:
Glad to see you 'survived' you 'baptism under fire' by the imperious"no", Ocre. Welcome to the club. :D

[Ocre]

Actually, I welcome the unusual as a fresh mirror, to see if any “no” on my part really believes something to “not be THAT”…. ;)

(“How 'I' (as in “That”) surprise mySelf in endless awe of how 'I' might appear…!”)

Besides, nothing real can ever die, now can it?

:-)

[sahyo]

Actually, I welcome the unusual as a fresh mirror, to see if any “no” on my part really believes something to “not be THAT”…. ;)

usual"unusual"?

which thinks "no" asif, and thinks asif "something" "mirror"? "mypart"? "THAT"?

does read asif "correction"?, asif saying "better of worse"?

:)

[Ocre]

which asking questions....

No which anywhere Asheera.

:-)

[sahyo]

did post say which "awhere", ocre?

[Ocre]

yes, it did.

"'Which' thinks "no" asif, and thinks ...and so on.

"anywhere" refers to any qualities Asheera atributed to this "which".

:-)

[sahyo]

ocre: No which anywhere

ocre: I welcome the unusual as a fresh mirror, to see if any “no” on my part really believes something to “not be THAT”….

[Ocre]

Any expression is just that Asheera, “That”.

It follows it’s own image of itself, always being just itself.

You can fill an entire forum with this or with the contents of this weeks Donald Duck magazine, it has no meaning other than the one that just happened, without any meaning.

:-)

[Ocre]

It never is about any-thing Asheera, that’s the whole point.
Response just happens because meaning just happens.
Asheera’s “it is not about…..(whatever follows)” is just as much ‘effortless meaning happening’.

If you feel it is not about meaning just happening, (=Asheera just happening) is meaning /response happening when Asheera reads Dutch?
I.o.w.: respons is about meaning, without meaning having meaning. (Without 'truth' being an object)

[sahyo]

'Which' thinks "no" asif, and thinks ...and so on.

no :lol:

"anywhere" refers to any qualities Asheera atributed to this "which".

do the posts say 'which' is "anywhere"?

[Ocre]

Your post said:

which thinks "no" asif, and thinks asif "something" "mirror"? "mypart"? "THAT"?

With that, you question what this which is or does, I responded there is no 'which', no place. (All is just THAT, appearing to itself in limitless variation)

If Asheera feels there is a which, this which is the same that asks all these questions about this 'which". i.o.w. there is no which, no object/subject.

:-)

[sahyo]

You can fill an entire forum with this or with the contents of this weeks Donald Duck magazine, it has no meaning other than the one that just happened, without any meaning.

"meaning"just happened"?

[Ocre]

Of course.

:-)

[sahyo]

(All is just THAT, appearing to itself

THAT?....to itself?

this which is the same that asks all these questions about this 'which"

do the posts say 'thought' (which) 'is'?

[sahyo]

Of course.



:lol:

[sahyo]

It never is about any-thing Asheera, that’s the whole point.
Response just happens because meaning just happens.
Asheera’s “it is not about…..(whatever follows)” is just as much ‘effortless meaning happening’.

which, whichnot, thinks asheera is saying "about"?

which, whichnot, thinks "meaning"?

effort"effortless"?

If you feel it is not about meaning just happening, (=Asheera just happening) is meaning /response happening when Asheera reads Dutch?

:lol:
.....sykycgihrtbstjc.....did responsing not happen? :D

I.o.w.: respons is about meaning, without meaning having meaning. (Without 'truth' being an object)

"truth"nottruth?....subject"object"?

[Ocre]

THAT?....to itself?
Of course Asheera. “That” as the unnameable, the Unchanging, appearing as only THAT.

do the posts say 'thought' (which) 'is'?

Of course, “thought” is the meaningfinder that effortlessly comes up with questions.

:-)

[Ocre]

which, whichnot, thinks asheera is saying "about"?

not 'about' "correction",
"better expression",
ocre
(Asheera’s post on the bottom of page 16 in the thread Words)

which, whichnot, thinks "meaning"?
There is no "which", why do you keep asking after it as if there is a "which"?

effort"effortless"?
Meaning only appears because it sets itself off against something else, again, without meaning ever being about "Truth".


.....sykycgihrtbstjc.....did responsing not happen?

Only because you understood the question. (attributing meaning to the English)


:-)

[sahyo]

“That” as the unnameable, the Unchanging, appearing as only THAT.

which thinks, which you called "unnameable", is 'awhere'whichnot called "THAT"?

Of course, “thought” is the meaningfinder that effortlessly comes up with questions.

yes "thought" can ask questions but which asked were not thoughtquestions

[Ocre]

There are no other questions than "thought-questions" Asheera...

There are no "real" questions....


:-)

[sahyo]

There is no "which", why do you keep asking after it as if there is a "which"?

did say there is 'awhich'?....did say thoughtwhich 'is'?

[Ocre]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 3 2003, 04:54 PM
Your post said:

which thinks "no" asif, and thinks asif "something" "mirror"? "mypart"? "THAT"?

With that, you question what this which is or does, I responded there is no 'which', no place. (All is just THAT, appearing to itself in limitless variation)

If Asheera feels there is a which, this which is the same that asks all these questions about this 'which". i.o.w. there is no which, no object/subject.

:-)
...

[sahyo]

Meaning only appears because it sets itself off against something else,

against?....something else?

again without meaning ever being about "Truth".

about?

[Ocre]

That’s why all is just THAT appearing in endless variations to appear to itself…

Again, it is never about anything. Truth is not an object, all appears in Unchanging Truth.

:-)

[sahyo]

did say there is 'awhich'?....did say thoughtwhich 'is'?



which thinks "no" asif, and thinks asif "something" "mirror"? "mypart"? "THAT"?

With that, you question what this which is or does, I responded there is no 'which', no place. (All is just THAT, appearing to itself in limitless variation)

If Asheera feels there is a which, this which is the same that asks all these questions about this 'which". i.o.w. there is no which, no object/subject.

:-)



did say there is 'awhich'?....did say thoughtwhich 'is'?

:)

[Ocre]

When you inform after the weather, do you not say there is "weather"?

When you inform after a "which", what which can this be but the one you ask questions about...?

:-)

[sahyo]

That’s why all is just THAT appearing in endless variations to appear to itself…

"THAT"?...."itself"?

Again, it is never about anything. Truth is not an object, all appears in Unchanging Truth.

yet ocre posted:


without meaning ever being about "Truth".


"about"?

[Ocre]

"THAT"?...."itself"?

You asked that question on page 2 as well.
Of course Asheera. “That” as the unnameable, the Unchanging, appearing as only THAT

“without meaning ever being about "Truth"= the meaninglessness of meaning = it is never about anything. Truth is not an object, all appears in Unchanging Truth.

:-)

[sahyo]

When you inform after a "which", what which can this be but the one you ask questions about...?

not "inform"ing "after a"which""....not "inform"ing and not asking 'about'

:)

[Ocre]

"which thinks "no" asif, and thinks asif "something" "mirror"? "mypart"? "THAT"? is not a question?

:-)

[sahyo]

You asked that question on page 2 as well.

yes since ocre responds as though hasn't read ;)

“without meaning ever being about "Truth"= the meaninglessness of meaning = it is never about anything. Truth is not an object, all appears in Unchanging Truth.

[color=gray]did indicate which ocre calls truth is an "object"subject?

"in"notin?....which thinks "Unchanging"changing?

[Ocre]

did indicate which ocre calls truth is an "object"subject?


Yes: when you quoted : "without meaning ever being about "Truth". and asked "about"?

Still no saturation on the "which-questons"? ...there is no "which"....

:-)

[sahyo]

"which thinks "no" asif, and thinks asif "something" "mirror"? "mypart"? "THAT"? is not a question?


not "inform"ing "after a"which""....not "inform"ing and not asking 'about'

[Ocre]

So, is it or is it not a question?

:-)

[sahyo]

did indicate which ocre calls truth is an "object"subject?


Yes: when you quoted : "without meaning ever being about "Truth". and asked "about"?

"about?", not like ocre thinking

Still no saturation on the "which-questons"? ...there is no "which"....

"saturation"?

'haps read which posted? :


did say there is 'awhich'?....did say thoughtwhich 'is'?

[sahyo]

So, is it or is it not a question?

not whether is or isn't question

:)

[Ocre]

"about", not like ocre thinking

Ocre's "about" is different from Asheera's "about?"

"saturation"? Yes, the question (which...? and so on) dissolving because attention moved from it. (Without anyone directing attention)

'haps read which posted?
did say there is 'awhich'?....did say thoughtwhich 'is'?
Whatever meaning is read into it, is meaningless Asheera, formed unfree and not about anything. Do you feel it is about something?

:-)

[sahyo]

:lol:

[Ocre]

:lol:

[rich]

which is about what is not the question.

Then if which is not about that,what is the question?
Whose on 1st? ;)
What is about which? :P
Which is about what? B)
What is about this? :o

[Ocre]

It’s a subjectively objectifying effortless effort to point at “no object, no subject”. :D

[sahyo]

:lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 4 2003, 09:20 AM
It’s a subjectively objectifying effortless effort to point at “no object, no subject”. :D
I 'get' that you found this 'agreeable', asheera.

Having read through this entire thread, my question to both Ocre and you is "So what?" And, anticipating your responses, to be "So Nothing", my next question is what, if 'anything[/u] 'real' at all, led either of you to imagine that what was said (besides the 'opening' comments) was 'worth' your and someone else's reading? And, anticipating both your responses to this to be "Nothing", my comment is that you both lead-balloon 'thump' me, in this instance at least, as both being 'abusers' and 'squanderers' of this "community's" attention-energy 'wealth'.

Not expecting that you will, let me neverthless beseech you both to "Spare me at least, if not everyone else, PURTY PULLEEASE!"

David

[fu*]

Davids judgement>>>as both being 'abusers' and 'squanderers' of this "community's" attention-energy 'wealth'.<<<

'You' are seeing "abusers", and "squanderer's". That is projected out(which is not out, but "out" to you/david)

When you have no concern for 'david' to be,.... for 'david' to be ahead or behind,.... for 'david' to be happy or sad.
Then you may see a difference in what is posted by Ocre, compared to what is posted by Asheera.

I believe that I have understood what you have been posting. And it may have much value for some in the "psycho-spiritual" search.

My Uncle wrote a book(unpublished) he called "the happiness express", which did much for me at a certain time in my life. Today we are worlds apart in thought(not the right word). And I believe that it is because he has placed such significant value in these thoughts/books/his-self, that it is hard to move beyond.

For me it was a stepping stone. For him it seems, an anchor.
Tooooo bad. So much value placed in self/thought, that there is no moving beyond.

You seem to be here wanting to "teach".
So is your "learning" done then?

[sahyo]

It’s a subjectively objectifying effortless effort to point at* “no object, no subject”. :D

I 'get' that you found this 'agreeable', asheera.

" :lol: " read asif was agreeing?

And, anticipating your responses, to be "So Nothing"
my next question is what, if 'anything[/u] 'real' at all, led either of you to imagine that what was said (besides the 'opening' comments) was 'worth' your and someone else's reading? And, anticipating both your responses to this to be "Nothing", my comment is that you both lead-balloon 'thump' me, in this instance at least, as both being 'abusers' and 'squanderers' of this "community's" attention-energy 'wealth'.

is asomeone'entity'? which feels 'relieved' thinking-posting whichnot, david

[rich]

This post is not directed to any person/persons in particular.

But, Thank God it is bed time, and I'll say goodnight, and leave this

looney bin for a while. :D :o :P :wacko:

[Ocre]

what, if 'anything[/u] 'real' at all, led either of you to imagine that what was said (besides the 'opening' comments) was 'worth' your and someone else's reading? And, anticipating both your responses to this to be "Nothing", my comment is that you both lead-balloon 'thump' me, in this instance at least, as both being 'abusers' and 'squanderers' of this "community's" attention-energy 'wealth'.

What leads ‘you’, leads ‘me’ David, it always and only can be itSELF.

There are no conditions for anything to perfectly appear in this Undivided, this Unnameable, no reasons for attention to be directed, it directs itself…

...It's how the Unchanging (where all comes and goes, without this Unchanging ever coming or going) invites itself endlessly to recognise itself in all..... (= Love)

It’s not that I love you
It’s that you show me, I am Love
It’s not that you love me
It’s that I show you, you are Love

I dissolves in you dissolves in me
No love to do, no love to give, just Love to be.

:-)

[sahyo]

...It's how the Unchanging (where all comes and goes, without this Unchanging ever coming or going) invites itself endlessly to recognise itself in all..... (= Love)

no

It’s that I show you, you are Love

no

I dissolves in you dissolves in me
No love to do, no love to give, just Love to be.

no

[rich]

IOW:NO :lol:

[Ocre]

Again Asheera;
“No” is just “meaning happening differently”.
There are no words (which objectify by their nature) to describe THAT in which all words appear.
And this does not ask for words to ever be used differently as if they can describe “That”.



:-)

[sahyo]

“No” is just “meaning happening differently”.

"no" wasn't "meaning happening differently"

There are no words (which objectify by their nature) to describe THAT in which all words appear.
And this does not ask for words to ever be used differently as if they can describe “That”.

"no" wasn't "describing"

"THAT"?...."That"?

:)

[Ocre]

"no" wasn't "meaning happening differently"
All words are described meaning happening.
"no" wasn't "describing"
All words describe.

“That”, as in the unnameable, the Unchanging.

:-)

[rich]

asheera posted:

“No” is just “meaning happening differently”.
"no" wasn't "meaning happening differently"


The only "happening differentlys" are Points of View.

That is what makes the world go around.

It breaks up the monotony of the Eternal Creation of the
now moment.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 6 2003, 08:52 PM
David: I 'get' that you found this 'agreeable', asheera.

asheera: " :lol: " read asif was agreeing?
Yes ... sort of. But the way I understand how the two words are (generally) 'used' for purposes of interpersonal communication, finding something 'agreeable' has a broader range of connotations than 'agreeing' with something.

Let me 'point' out that the 'question'-mode you (as usual) use to hide your personal 'meaning' behind does not deign to confirm or disconfirm whether what I 'gathered' was 'true' in relation to the 'meaning' of your " :lol: " in this case, or to let me know, if it wasn't 'true', or only 'true' in part, what the actual 'truth' regarding the matter was. Looks like the idea of a 'conversational-dance' being a mutually-related, mutually-relating activity is completely 'foreign' to you. I keep hoping, nevertheless, that one of these days you might want to engage in way that is mutually meaningful.

[sahyo]

But the way I understand how the two words are (generally) 'used' for purposes of interpersonal communication, finding something 'agreeable' has a broader range of connotations than 'agreeing' with something.

"something"?

Let me 'point' out that the 'question'-mode you (as usual) use to hide your personal 'meaning' behind does not deign to confirm or disconfirm whether what I 'gathered' was 'true' in relation to the 'meaning' of your " " in this case, or to let me know, if it wasn't 'true', or only 'true' in part, what the actual 'truth' regarding the matter was. Looks like the idea of a 'conversational-dance' being a mutually-related, mutually-relating activity is completely 'foreign' to you. I keep hoping, nevertheless, that one of these days you might want to engage in way that is mutually meaningful.

which thinks"meaning?....which thinksdesires-seeks-expects-"meaning''?....is a"something" which thinks?

:)

[DavidS]

(caveat to readers: this is fairly loong post)

Hi fu* -

I very much appreciate your very thoughtful engagement.

'You' are seeing "abusers", and "squanderer's". That is projected out (which is not out, but "out" to you/david)

Yes, I am seeing 'abusers' and 'squanderers'. As far as this necessarily being a total projection of me-david alone with absolutely no 'relevance' to what's actually going on beyond me-david's 'confines', let me ask you, don't you 'see' thangs which could be 'called' (for purposes of conversation) 'abusers' and 'squanderers' (or 'labels' with 'similar' connotations), if not here then elsewhere on the the world-stage too? None whatsoever? Or are the one's you 'see' {U]necessarily[/U] (in your opinion) 'projections' of yours which have nothing to do with the subjects who 'appear' so in your eyes?

When you have no concern for 'david' to be,.... for 'david' to be ahead or behind,.... for 'david' to be happy or sad.
Then you may see a difference in what is posted by Ocre, compared to what is posted by Asheera.

Whether or not there are any 'interfering' david-concerns, let I do 'see' quite a few 'significant' differences between what is posted by Ocre and what is posted by Asheera -- as well as similarities or convergences. These are what I was 'addressing'. In terms of the differences, Ocre's comments at the very least state things in terms which can be meaningfully understood and responded to.

My response was definitely 'infected' by the 'frustration' I experienced in reading and trying to meaningfully relate to statements with 'built-in' meaning-negation while being in a 'tired' (low-personal-energy) state myself. However, on 'second look' I 'saw' that there was a lot of meaning there for me to relate to once I 'freed' myself from my tendency to take people 'at their word' and respond to them on that basis.

Let me 'show' you someting about what I 'see' now about the 'meaning' issue that what was being bandied about.

In my view, (1) Mind is a ubiquitously present, operative part and parcel of all Being ...as is Spirit, of course ... wherever you find Being you will find both Mind (some sort of Awareness, or Consciousness) and Spirit (some sort of 'sustaining' and 'motivating' energy-essence) 'present'. The two, Mind and Spirit, are ubiquitously present in the 'world' of Being, or Isness. In my view, there is no such thing as a 'world' or 'realm' or 'situ' (from 'situation') which is 'separate' or dissociated from the 'world' of Being (hence there is no such thing as a 'world' or 'realm' or 'situ' where Mind and Spirit are inoperative. They are part and parcel of every 'soul', always 'operative' in some fashion or manner.

Having said that, let me leave Being and Spirit out of the word-picture with the understanding that they are equi-present whether or not referred to in relation to thangs mentioned and discussed.

Whatever you may think about the possibility of Mind being an operative part and parcel or not an operative part and parcel of thangs without bio-material 'brains', I hope you can al least go long with my pro·position as far as us human critters are concerned.

In my view, (2) It is the 'nature' or 'design' of Mind to 'perceive' meaningful patterns (i.e., something about how thangs 'stand' in relation to one another) as well as tendencies (as 'exhibited' in 'trends' or 'progressions'), like the cats and dogs adeptly do in relation to physical presences and movements in their visual -field. Though Atmanically 'different' subjects may 'perceive' different things, or the 'same' subject' may perceive different things at different time-space-node 'points), Mind is an (always) operational 'faculty'-component of all Life.

(3) The perceived patterns and tendencies are meanings which live!. They are living 'happenings', which 'happen' and dynamically morph-flow around in the life-field of the Minds of living subjects. There is no meaning in any 'out there' - I imagine, if not everyone, most here would agree with this. My point here is that they are aspects of the ex·pression of LIFE Itself (even though and while these may be considered 'transitory' -- so are the sun-sunning and the leaves-redding too!).

Here's my first point (it's an 'objection' really) to a certain 'theme' I subjectively 'perceive' character·izing asheera's 'commentary'. I submit, for your and everyone else's scrutiny and consideration, that it is TWO-faced (i.e., non-'integrous') to talk and write sentimentally 'sweet' poems about things like the sun-sunning, wind-winding, water-flowing, leaves-redding, etc., etc. etc. with one breathe while, for all practical purposes, trashing' the Mind's meaning-making activities and productions with another. The meanings people perceive and attempt to 'convey' to and 'share' with others here are living expressions of That Which Is, which are every bit as 'wonderful' or 'sacred' or 'beautiful' and therefore deserving of 'awe' and 'reverence' in their own right as any other aspect of Life's Being-flow, whether these be 'materially' Life-'manifesting' (like the sun-sunning, etc.) OR their 'presence' is expressed in other fashions.

Here's my second point, in relation to Ocre's saying: "Meaning only appears because it sets itself off against something else, again, without meaning ever being about "Truth". I take the use of the word 'only' in this case to be an indication that you (implicitly at least) denigrate of the 'golden' value of LIFE. Remember, in my view, things like [/I]meaning[/I] and wisdom LIVE (or don't) in the 'world' of Life's ex·pression, like the sun and the earth and 'you' and 'I', participate in and contribute to the flow of LIFE. Imagine someone saying that the 'sun', the 'earth', and 'you' and 'I' only appear 'in contrast' to/with something else. That's 'true' of course, when it comes to 'perception', BUT the 'derogatory' tone in terms of 'value' becomes clear when one adds (playing off your words, Ocre) "without the sun, the earth, you, I or anyone or anything else ever being about 'Truth'."

The sun, the earth, you, I and everything and everyone else are manifestations of Reality (or at least, as 'intimately' connected with Reality as child to her/his birth-giving mother). IMO, except in the 'light' of 'compartmentalized' thinking, you cannot 'denigrate' one without implicitly 'denigrating' the other. Everything ALIVE is part of the "Truth". To conceptually set "Truth" off from That Which Lives (which includes each and every kind of meaning), IMO belies just as 'terrible' a kind of earth-based-LIFE-'derogatoriness', IMO, as conceptually seeting "God" off by Himself, Herself or Itself and seeing all earth-based LIFE as something 'separate' from "God".

It is a kind of 'sacrilege', IOW. The meanings that emerge in your MIND field, as well as the meanings which emerge in mine, whatever the degree of divergence or convergence between them, as well as the 'dance' that we do in the course of (meaniingfully) 'integrating' (or not) with one another, are all part of the play- and interplay-flow of the 'Truth".

This would just be a matter of 'academic' interest (just different ways of 'framing' the same kinds of hangs) EXCEPT for the fact that, operating on the premise that their views and concuslions deriving therefrom (the meanings they 'espouse) are completely integral, asheera in particular tends to (always) implicity, if not explicity, relegate the meanings alluded to by the words others express to the 'trash' heap. (Anticipating your thinking that you are not 'trashing' them and your 'giving' me another one one of you imperious "no's", asheera, let me say they are very 'far' from being personal-meaning honoring -- at least, that's been 'consistent' in my perception-n-experience as I 'receive' to the best of my ability what your words 'convey'.)

Given my 'view' that meanings are aspects of LIFE, I hope you can understand my 'judgment' that saying (or implying) things like "Meaning is Meaningless" and/or vice versa, beside belonging in the same genre as 1984-Orwelling double-talk (War is Peace, etc.), is, I submit for scrutiny and consideration, meaning·cidal -- and the 'meanings' of the words homi·cidal and [/I]sui[/I]·cidal are pertinent 'clues' to the meaning I wish to 'convey' here. Speaking of Orwellian double-talk, consider the 'hidden' motives of those who promote and participate in such activity-ventures. Ahh, but that touches on the subject of the Spirit of (i.e., the 'e·motions' or 'motives' givin 'rise' to) the meanings that people espouse as well as trip-lay on 'listening' others, and this post is already long enough.

I hear what you are saying about the 'dangers' that meaning-form·ulation entail, and hope that in time you come to see that my meaning-formulations are quite fluid and not rigid like and 'imprisoning' as in your uncle's case.

You seem to be here wanting to "teach". So is your "learning" done then?

I very much appreciate your understanding. Yes, "I am a teacher" is part (one part, there are many others) of my conscious mental-n-emotional constellation. But whether it be one's 'acknowledged' vocation or avocation, or whether one doesn't 'acknowledge' any "-tion" in this regard at all, in my view, anyone who shares what they personally 'know' and the manner in which they have come to 'know' it, is functionally a "teacher" (this depending on whether or not someone else 'get's something meaning-useful from what is said, of course).

Also please note: IMO, in order to be a 'good' "teacher" one has to be a 'good' "learner". 'Good' teachers' 'know' this, so they put a 'premium' on "learning" the best they can. The kind of {I]exposition[/I] (i.e., 'teaching') and {I]understanding[/I](i.e., 'learning') pertaining to meanings I am talking about has nothing to do with "parrot"-speech like ventures. It has a lot to do with 'integrating' what one "learns" (which may be quite different from what someone else is "teaching") in the course of one's interactions, and I can tell you I am "learning" a lot in the course of my interactions here, as it looks to me like you are as well.

Let me close with this: Ocre, I have an open mind there is plenty in what you have said that leaves room for a different (even 'opposite') interpretation on my part. But for now, in response to your saying:

"It’s not that I love you
It’s that you show me, I am Love
It’s not that you love me
It’s that I show you, you are Love

I dissolves in you dissolves in me
No love to do, no love to give, just Love to be.

My response is that I think those words are 'belied' by the meaning·cidalness evident in your stated 'philosophy'. Your 'attitude' toward the meanings that LIVE in the world of Mind-play is a very far cry from anything that I would call Love ('doing' it, 'giving' it, or 'just' being it. By the way have you considered the possibility being-n-doing are really inseparable, just as Mind-n-Spiirit are really inseparable in my view? The are only 'conceptually' separable. One cannot 'be' Love, without 'flow-doing' love (and thus flow-giving Love). It is the 'nature' of every aspect of Life to ex·press 'itself'.

Seeing is believing, some say. So far, your saying "I dissolves in you dissolves in me" strikes me as being 'suspiciously' like 'sophist' pretty-talk. I haven't had the opportunity to 'know' you for very long though, and your words and manner of engagement both strike me as emanation-indicating an admixture of a variety of (sometimes self-contradictory in my view) meaning-elements, so I look forward to further 'revelations' and 'clariications' in this regard.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Which (set of characteristics)
Anywhere (history of the observer)

[sahyo]

is "which"?
is "anywhere"?

:)

[fu*]

Hi David,

>>>let me ask you, don't you 'see' thangs which could be 'called' (for purposes of conversation) 'abusers' and 'squanderers' (or 'labels' with 'similar' connotations), if not here then elsewhere on the the world-stage too? None whatsoever? Or are the one's you 'see' {U]necessarily[/U] (in your opinion) 'projections' of yours which have nothing to do with the subjects who 'appear' so in your eyes?<<<

If I am understanding what you are saying, then yes, "I" do see ''abusers' and 'squanderers''. But it is as if in order to do this I have to 'believe'. If the 'world' is a kind of acting. I can play my part. I can act 'as if'.
This "act" was once real. Now it seems just "acting" for the sake of relating. Relating to all that see's itself as more than an act. The all that has been acting so long that it is no longer an act, but real. Is a movie "real"? Yes, in a way it is. It is there. It is color, and sound....and...., But there is something behind/beyond this "acting" of ''abusers' and 'squanderers'', isn't there?

You have used the labels of ''abusers' and 'squanderers'', but what if "others" here liked to read said posts, for whatever reason. Could be anything from bordem to an obsesion with letters of black on a white backround. So don't these "labels" represent a true reflection of just "david"?. What"david" likes/dislikes, thinks/is?( would also apply to the weirdo who likes black letters on a white screen ;) ) Isn't that projecting out what "david" is? A mirror reflection taking the form of letters on a screen?


Are we trying to color the 'play' "happy"?, not knowing that it is a "play"?

Maybe it is because we were "taught/told" this stuff like BB says.

>>>that it is TWO-faced (i.e., non-'integrous') to talk and write sentimentally 'sweet' poems about things like the sun-sunning, wind-winding, water-flowing, leaves-redding, etc., etc. etc. with one breathe while, for all practical purposes, trashing' the Mind's meaning-making activities and productions with another<<<

Maybe because "Mind's meaning-making activities" are what keeps one from "sun-sunning, wind-winding, water-flowing, leaves-redding"

Why is it, do you think, that you see "trashing", and I dont?

[BeyondBeliefs]

I tried to think of something that is all good or all bad.
But can not.

Mosquito ? The development of our immune response depends on tiny infiltrations.

I kill living things to feed my body.
To build one thing requires the consumption of another.

I can find what is "bad" about everything in the universe.
Life on Mercury, Venus and Mars destroyed by the sun that gave us Life.

It is a willfull effort to sacrifice time and material for a worthy cause.
[edit] Or at least for the search for a worthy cause.
Whatever we do, will use up something else, at the least our time.

[rich]

BB posted "something" beyond my reasoning, which is:
I can find what is "bad" about everything in the universe.
Life on Mercury, Venus and Mars destroyed by the sun that gave us Life.

Life on Mercury, Venus and Mars, has not been proved to be, just like life on theSUN has not been proved, To be or not to be. It would take a heat resistant being to prove it. :o :D

[The Great One]

Ever thought that the Sun itself maybe "alive?"

[rich]

Originally posted by The Great One@Oct 14 2003, 11:45 PM
Ever thought that the Sun itself maybe "alive?"
Hi The Great One. :D

Many years do not see your posts. Nice that you are here. :)

You asked about the sun being alive? With all of that energy, how could it be dead? ;)
Even the galaxies, planetary systems, comets, etc. may have some different forms of life, which the human microbes, will never be able to discover
their inner secrets. :unsure:
It takes understanding to discover something. :)

[Ocre]

"It’s not that I love you
It’s that you show me, I am Love
When “I” moves into forgetting you and me, (when usually we feel we are in love with someone) this is because the essence of “I” is seen (Love)

It’s not that you love me
It’s that I show you, you are Love
When “You” moves into forgetting you and me, (when usually that is seen as being in love with me) this is because the essence of “You” is seen (Love)

I dissolves in you dissolves in me
No love to do, no love to give, just Love to be.
Love seen as the essence (of being), no'one' loving another, but recognising love is what they/we are.

:-)

[Ocre]

(Translation from Dutch, words by Wolter Keers.)

When I love somebody, it doesn’t mean that this other awakens love in me, for essentially I am Love itself and it isn’t generated, it is always there.
But this other makes me forget all the things I project onto my true being.
This other is the means and cause of the selfish standpoint disappearing.
With this, Love isn’t roused, but with this she shows herself. She was always there.
It’s not the wind that reveals the sun, it just chases the clouds, the sun was always there.

:-)

[sahyo]

Love seen as the essence (of being), no'one' loving another, but recognising love is what they/we are.

"Love seen as"?
"recognising love is"?

[Ocre]

Are these questions?

:-)

[sahyo]

not important isisn't questions, ocre

[sahyo]

When I love somebody, it doesn’t mean that this other awakens love in me, for essentially I am Love itself and it isn’t generated, it is always there.
But this other makes me forget all the things I project onto my true being.
This other is the means and cause of the selfish standpoint disappearing.
With this, Love isn’t roused, but with this she shows herself. She was always there.
It’s not the wind that reveals the sun, it just chases the clouds, the sun was always there.



no

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 15 2003, 06:38 PM
not important isisn't questions, ocre
Which is thinking important-not important?

:-)

[Ocre]

no

Again: No is just meaning happening differently, without meaning ever being ‘truth’…

:-)

[sahyo]

ocre: Which is thinking important-not important?

ocre: Are these questions?

[sahyo]

Again: No is just meaning happening differently, without meaning ever being ‘truth’…


no

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 15 2003, 07:33 PM
ocre: Which is thinking important-not important?

ocre: Are these questions?
Now what, Ocre will do Asheera's response, and Asheera will do Ocre's?

No saturation yet with it having no meaning and not being about anything?

:-)

[sahyo]

"saturuation"?

"it"?

[Ocre]

Saturation: the question (which...? and so on) dissolving because attention moved from it. (Without anyone directing attention)

(taken from page 3 in this thread)

"It" having no meaning=meaning having no meaning.

:-)

[sahyo]

"saturuation"?

"it"?

[Ocre]

Saturation: the question (which...? and so on) dissolving because attention moved from it. (Without anyone directing attention)

(taken from page 3 in this thread)

"It" having no meaning=meaning having no meaning.

:-)

[sahyo]

... :
..analizing what's written is one of your gifts Ocre, and as with everything, there's always something to find, to question, and that's part of joy, right? It's what Ocre's 'make-up' does best, amongst other things.

[DavidS]

Hi fu*, thank you for your thoughtful and engaging reply.

If I am understanding what you are saying, then yes, "I" do see ''abusers' and 'squanderers''. But it is as if in order to do this I have to 'believe'. If the 'world' is a kind of acting. I can play my part. I can act 'as if'.

Yes, but there are several 'levels' (or 'dimensions') of 'truth' pertinaing to this. Let me use the analogy of am athletic sport-game. The players play 'as if' the game itself, that is the (relative) 'adeptitude' of any given 'performance' as well as the 'score' matter, when, in 'ultimate terms', it may be seen-n-said that these don't - they are but passing mile-event-stones, which 'vanish' into the past, along the way. The 'events' (including who 'wins' and who 'loses', as well as how 'well' or how 'badly' at any given moment) themselves, like the 'script' or 'story' of the movie ultimately 'vanish' into 'insignificance'.

But, assuming there is something about the sports[Wo]man or actor which 'develops' and such 'development' continues to develop further as a kind of 'growth'-'response' deriving from the ex·eer·iences one has in wholeheartedly 'playing' the 'game', that is not an 'as if' kind (because it 'vanishes' in the past) temporary event-happening. That is part and parcel of an 'eternal' procession/progression which may still be regarded as being nothing more than an 'as if' kind o' thang, but, I submit, which is 'spiritually' 'substantial' - at least 'substantial' enough to continue to 'live' and 'express' itself (I am talking things like the 'added' or 'grown' wisdom garnered in the course of 'playing' the 'game', here) "unto the (absolute) 'end' of time" (assuming there is and will be such a thang). I can 'see' that this is of no 'value' and thus of not 'interest' to many, but IMO, these'r no 'small' flower-fruit-n-seed 'pickings', IMO.

This "act" was once real. Now it seems just "acting" for the sake of relating. Relating to all that see's itself as more than an act.

I can certainly relate to the feeling of what an 'unsavory' 'bummer' it is to relate either 'soullessly' myself or to someone who 'actions' (words, etc.) are 'soulless' -- where the 'acts' and 'words' have no 'vital' meaning (just being for the 'sake' of creaturely 'relating' and nothing else. But I-David think-n-feel-n-believe that I 'belong' to (i.e., that I-David 'emanate' from) a 'soul' which I-David 'see' as being 'more' than any thought-feeling-or-'act' of 'mine'-David's, which I 'see' as 'developing' and 'growing' in psychospiritual 'stature' as I 'engage in' and 'play' the I-am-'related'-to-every-one-else 'relating' 'game'. I am not 'looking' to 'relate' just for the sake of 'relating'. I'm 'into' 'it' as a 'fun', multi-level-meaningful, creative-'game'-venue-way of 'growing' and 'developing' soul-wise.

The all that has been acting so long that it is no longer an act, but real. Is a movie "real"? Yes, in a way it is. It is there. It is color, and sound....and...., But there is something behind/beyond this "acting" of ''abusers' and 'squanderers'', isn't there?

Yes. To 'contextualize' this let me add that, in my view, there is a historical 'oscillation' in terms of 'popular' 'consciousness', between a predominantly 'psychospiritual' phase, when people are generally (more) aware of the nature of the "something behind/beyond the 'acting' " thang, and periods when people generally have 'lost sight' of that 'essence·ial' thang, and only 'see' and 'evaluate' relational activity in terms of the 'game'-foreground. The first 'phase' is 'characteristic' of a new-idea-infused birth-n-developmental-elaboration of a 'culture'. The latter is 'characteristic' of the 'dying-n-disintegrating' process which, as a 'culture' becomes an 'ossified' assembly of vested-ideas-in-interests and so fails to creatuvely adapt to changing circumstances, it is the "way of all 'flesh'" (meaning 'form') to follow.

This ('historical' NOW) looks to me like it is a cultural death-rebirth time when many (though certainly not the 'majority', mind you) are 'waking up' from the relative! meaninglessness of such superficial 'identity' and mode of 'relationship', and [re?]becoming 'aware of' and 'conscious' in the eternally 'valid') meaning-arena which lies "behind/beyond the 'acting' " -- which 'domain' is the same thang as what was 'referenced' as "the kingdom of God" at a 'parallel' trajectory-point in an earlier spiral-'loop' of the same kind of back-and-forth-transitional history by Jesus, I image·in.

You have used the labels of ''abusers' and 'squanderers'', but what if "others" here liked to read said posts, for whatever reason.

Let them soul-'respond' to such posts and I might possibly 'receive' something which would 'awaken me' and 'expand' my 'view' further. IMO, the 'truth' is never onething or another. What I posted was 'merely' one light-shadow-pattern-casting perspective which might be 'worth' 'sharing' I thought.

Could be anything from bordem to an obsession with letters of black on a white backround.

Yes, indeedy. Could be bored-child-in-kindergarten shenanagins of many kinds, including something that's the result of analogical 'soiled' diapers, methinks! I'm just being a seeing-n-sniffing 'mirror'-hound 'baying' forth what things look-n-smell like to me. Maybe the 'me' element that's in folks like asheera and Ocre will 'resonate' in a way that results in the word-play dance being more 'vitally'-engaging for 'me'. Who knows? I think it is 'reasonable' to 'speculate' that it just might possibly be 'so' for others here as well, that is assuming there's some of the 'me' element in 'them' as well.

So don't these "labels" represent a true reflection of just "david"?. What"david" likes/dislikes, thinks/is?

Yes, absolutely; but note this doesn't mean that it is necessarily 'confined' to "david", that it is not a 'reflection' of (some maybe, at least) others (put in 'names' of everyone else here) are also 'like', and what they may like-dislike-think-feel-etc. as well -- people do share quite a range of 'sensibilities'.

(would also apply to the weirdo who likes black letters on a white screen ;) )

Yes, and that would be what is 'true' and 'valid' for him or her in relation to what's going on here. Mine are but one set of eyes and ears and mouths, mine is but one mental-n-emotional 'soul'-configuration, among many who are actively and passively present. I'm going on the notion that everyone (who wants to) ex·press·ing his or her 'take' thangs for all to consider and use (or not, as personally chosen) to 'flesh out' his or her perspective on thangs is a good thang. It is only thangs like 'meaninglessness' and 'self-contradictory obfuscation' that I am 'pointing' to as being 'abusive' and 'wasteful' of readers attention-energy.

Isn't that projecting out what "david" is? A mirror reflection taking the form of letters on a screen?

Yes. And I am hoping that seeing/interpreting the 'forms' of the letters I-David generate on screen is as 'revealing' of my mental-n-emotional soul-configuration they are of 'me' to 'myself' when I read them. In ways, I 'know myself' 'better' (more 'clearly') after reading and contemplating the significance of what I've written (having no idea of what I would specifically write at the outset). It's a very enjoyable 'exercise' which I'm sure benefits 'me' more than anyone else, 'benefits' 'me' in the 'sense' of the growth-n-development thang I spoke about earlier.

Are we trying to color the 'play' "happy"?, not knowing that it is a "play"?

'We'? I don't know about you or anyone else in this regard, but I am trying to 'picture' the movie-'play' as it is going on (the game in town, on screen!) and share that 'picture' by word-painting it -- sometimes aspect-"happy", sometimes aspect-"sad", sometimes aspect-a, -b, -c, -d, . . . -x, -y, -z (take it awaaaay, richie! - just 'playing' ;) ). I do this {U]fully knowing that it is 'play' and at the same time 'knowing' stuff in relation to the 'growth' and 'development' and increasing 'freedom' of choice (or 'stagnation' and 'decay' and increasing degree of reflexive-'slavery') of the soul-configurations of the player-actors on stage.

Maybe it is because we were "taught/told" this stuff like BB says.

Yes. But also, maybe it is because were weren't "taught/told" 'alternate'-view stuff, or didn't open themselves to and build on the inspiration to image-in how things actually are for themselves. By the way, I prefer "shown"/"pointed out" in experiential terms as 'better' way referencing the way mommies, daddies, siblings and extended family members "tell" or 'teach" -- what is 'ideally' possible in this regard, at least.

Maybe because "Mind's meaning-making activities" are what keeps one from "sun-sunning, wind-winding, water-flowing, leaves-redding"

Yes, I know of many who are so totally 'caught up' and 'entagled' in meaning-making-activities that {U]such[/U] interference effect occurs. But I, among others, personally live quite a 'healthy' and 'balanced' life in this regards, being-n-doing-n-appreciating-n-enjoying both kinds o' life-flowings. I, for one, am 'out amidst' and 'enthralled by' (non-'human') 'nature' for a significant portion of every day. I have communicated this ability as well as preference about my mental-n-emotional soul-configuration. What I 'relationally' 'object to' is asheeras persistently completely ignoring all such 'transmissions' on my part and just continuing (ad my-nauseum) to bird-dog (as though they would be better 'shot down') my Mind-art·iculations -- as far as I am concerned (this 'references' my personal, subjective thoughts-n-feelings about the matter ]U]only[/U]), she is an art-party-raping poopist! :lol:

Why is it, do you think, that you see "trashing", and I dont?

Because we 'view' (i.e., think-n-feel about) things differently and (so) 'value' things differently, I'm pretty sure. What I said in the above para is the closest to I can come to 'explaining' Why. You clearly don't see (or 'categorizes') what I see as "trashing". From what you've said, I 'project' that you do not consider the notion of a 'personal soul' 'realistic', much less that it references something every bit as 'sacred', or 'beautiful', or 'wonderful', as "sun-sunning, wind-winding, water-flowing, leaves-redding" etc. Assuming I'm 'right' about that, it of course would logically follow that you wouldn't 'see' any "trashing" as being operational in asheera's 'tactics'. Whatever the case, I dare say, there's 'truth' (i.e., what we each think-n-feel is 'truth') underlying both our respective 'takes' on the matter.

Sincerely - David

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 15 2003, 01:51 AM
"It’s not that I love you
It’s that you show me, I am Love
When “I” moves into forgetting you and me, (when usually we feel we are in love with someone) this is because the essence of “I” is seen (Love)

It’s not that you love me
It’s that I show you, you are Love
When “You” moves into forgetting you and me, (when usually that is seen as being in love with me) this is because the essence of “You” is seen (Love)

I dissolves in you dissolves in me
No love to do, no love to give, just Love to be.
Love seen as the essence (of being), no'one' loving another, but recognising love is what they/we are.
Yes to how you 'frame' things in this regard. And, in this regard, all possible 'power', or 'love', wished youward.

On another thematic 'score', and this may prove 'problematic' when and where "You" and "I" don't choose to, or don't manage to despite 'wanting' to, 'move' into 'forgetting' 'you' and 'me'', by all means possible, I would also welcome 'your' personal choice to 'relationally' 'love' whatever it is this 'I' is 'moved' to be be-n-do in such fashion as well. Every time I have 'forgotten' 'myself' and 'others' as 'valid' beings-n-doings in their own right, I have 'reawakened' to the 'value' of 'loving' in this way too.
:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre+Oct 15 2003, 05:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ocre @ Oct 15 2003, 05:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--asheera@Oct 15 2003, 07:33 PM
ocre: Which is thinking important-not important?

ocre: Are these questions?
Now what, Ocre will do Asheera's response, and Asheera will do Ocre's?

No saturation yet with it having no meaning and not being about anything?

:-)[/b][/quote]
Etc.

I would have liked to 'reprise' the entire 'display' to do true justice to its 'glory', asheera and Ocre, but I must say, what a scintillating mobius-strip one-upmanship go-around 'display'! Reminds me of videos I've seen of racing car/track toys where the tracks criss-cross as the cars speed along essentially (except for the criss-cross part) parallel runways. 'Pure' 'entertainment' for some, I'm sure.

[a random hack]

sorry, didn't have time to read all that, david, but first paragraph caught eye.

life seems to be series of apparent cycles, in the example above, each game might be considered one cycle, each season an encompassing cycle, the sports career of an athlete another longer cycle, and the history cycle of the particular sport another cycle....
no cycle ultimately (from 'far' enough viewpoint) permanent. but of course, we mostly play as if they are :).

[sahyo]

I would have liked to 'reprise' the entire 'display'


"display"?


what a scintillating mobius-strip one-upmanship go-around 'display'!


"one-upmanship"?


which david posted not 'about' ocreasheera posting

:)

[BeyondBeliefs]

From simplicity to complexity.
Evolving since long before the first Hydrogen Atom.
Evolving to more and more complex forms.
Until one ball of gas burst into a flaming sun.
That lived billions of years before producing the Iron in my blood,
and these ashes beneath my feet, called The Earth.
All as alive as I am.
The Creation that Creates.
From simple to complex.

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 15 2003, 09:04 PM
... :
..analizing what's written is one of your gifts Ocre, and as with everything, there's always something to find, to question, and that's part of joy, right? It's what Ocre's 'make-up' does best, amongst other things.*


That might just be another way of phrasing: “neti-neti-nitpick-pecking” :D
But I guess the “other things” might even it out into general lovability from Ed’s p.o.v. :P

:-)

[Ocre]

David: I would also welcome 'your' personal choice to 'relationally' 'love' whatever it is this 'I' is 'moved' to be be-n-do in such fashion as well. Every time I have 'forgotten' 'myself' and 'others' as 'valid' beings-n-doings in their own right, I have 'reawakened' to the 'value' of 'loving' in this way too.

Experience seems to mirror the measure of “Love-recognised”. (The measure of self-realisation).
All is always whole, the Seeing that seems to split into a seer and that which is seen, doesn’t ‘split’ wholeness into parts… (seer and the seen are still whole) Just like water might appear as a wave, but still is water.

The measure in which separation is believed, is mirrored in the experience. Not as a deed from a believer, but as wholeness manifest.
When wholeness recognises ‘itself’ through this illusion of “none-wholeness”, Self is realised.

:-)

[sahyo]

When wholeness recognises ‘itself’ through this illusion of “none-wholeness”, Self is realised.



no

[sahyo]

which analyzed-guessing which ... posted?, ocre ;)

[Ocre]

Still no which Asheera.
For the exchange that might follow from this point on, you might just as well loop back in this thread to several of these “starting points” in the ‘dialogue’. :D (Meaning you don’t need Ocre anymore for this ‘dance’, since the steps were laid out several times already…) ;)

:-)

[sahyo]

ocre thinking"which" or wouldn't post like has been posting

which thought “starting points”? , ‘dialogue’?

which thought "you don’t need Ocre anymore"? as though 'needed'

hehe

:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 17 2003, 11:14 AM
When wholeness recognises ‘itself’ through this illusion of “none-wholeness”, Self is realised.
no
k'chng, k'chng, k'chng, Ocre . . . that ballrun sequence racked up quite a yes-bellish score on my pinball machine.
:D

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 18 2003, 03:52 AM
ocre thinking"which" or wouldn't post like has been posting

which thought “starting points”? , ‘dialogue’?

which thought "you don’t need Ocre anymore"? as though 'needed'

hehe

:)
Do you mean that from Asheera’s point of view, there are conditions to be met for something as unreal as “which” to be unreal? (like expression happening a certain way?)

(Does Asheera need to see it absent in expression, for it to be absent?)

Besides, which is thinking “ocre thinking"which" or wouldn't post like has been posting” and so on?

:D

[sahyo]

:) no, ocre


..analizing what's written is one of your gifts Ocre, and as with everything, there's always something to find, to question, and that's part of joy, right?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 18 2003, 12:49 PM
:) no, ocre


..analizing what's written is one of your gifts Ocre, and as with everything, there's always something to find, to question, and that's part of joy, right?
... and, to "and that's part of the joy, right?", I would like to add: "and that's part of the gift (that is, to those who are 'able' and 'willing'' to 'receive' 'it') also, right?"

Though Ocre's and my 'world-views' differ in significant ways at this point, one thing that is very clear to me is that Ocre's analyses are aimed-n-utilized for the purpose of, i.e., in an 'attempt' to reach, synthesis.

Any 'biases' and/or 'rough edges' (which are always just 'relative' assessments deriving from another 'observer's' positional-view in any event) notwithstanding, I appreciate your gift, Ocre. Maybe 'clarification' 'just' 'takes place' 'in' 'the beholding eye', but it sure 'helps' to have a second set of 'I'-eyes ;) to triangulate with - at least that's my ex·peer·ience.

Thanks - keep it coming - David :)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 19 2003, 02:49 AM
:) no, ocre


..analizing what's written is one of your gifts Ocre, and as with everything, there's always something to find, to question, and that's part of joy, right?


I feel I can see what Ed conveyed through these words when he expressed them, I cannot see what you read into them… :blink:

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by DavidS+Oct 21 2003, 12:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Oct 21 2003, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--asheera@Oct 18 2003, 12:49 PM
:) no, ocre


..analizing what's written is one of your gifts Ocre, and as with everything, there's always something to find, to question, and that's part of joy, right?
... and, to "and that's part of the joy, right?", I would like to add: "and that's part of the gift (that is, to those who are 'able' and 'willing'' to 'receive' 'it') also, right?"

Though Ocre's and my 'world-views' differ in significant ways at this point, one thing that is very clear to me is that Ocre's analyses are aimed-n-utilized for the purpose of, i.e., in an 'attempt' to reach, synthesis.

Any 'biases' and/or 'rough edges' (which are always just 'relative' assessments deriving from another 'observer's' positional-view in any event) notwithstanding, I appreciate your gift, Ocre. Maybe 'clarification' 'just' 'takes place' 'in' 'the beholding eye', but it sure 'helps' to have a second set of 'I'-eyes ;) to triangulate with - at least that's my ex·peer·ience.

Thanks - keep it coming - David :) [/b][/quote]
We are all “being given” by, from, through and to “THAT”. :D B)

:-)

[sahyo]

I feel I can see what Ed conveyed through these words when he expressed them, I cannot see what you read into them…*



yes not see which ocre"you read into them" :)

[sahyo]

We are all “being given” by, from, through and to “THAT”.


:lol:

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 21 2003, 06:09 AM

I feel I can see what Ed conveyed through these words when he expressed them, I cannot see what you read into them…*



yes not see which ocre"you read into them" :)
In spite of my practise with your “Asheerian” bb-language Sherry, :D this one I can’t decipher.. :blink:

:-)

[sahyo]

In spite of my practise with your “Asheerian” bb-language Sherry


:lol: ;)


my practice with your “Asheerian” bb-language Sherry


which thinks'assuming'concluding'whichnot', ocre?

[Ocre]

There is no “which thinks'assuming'concluding'whichnot’. Does Asheera still see a which?

:-)

[sahyo]

:lol: