Since the human soul cannot be produced by the transmutation of matter, it cannot but be produced immediately by God.
Reason in man is rather like God in the world. He who desires a good seeks to have it as it really is in nature, not as it is in his consciousness. The desire for good is more corrupted than is the knowledge of truth. Gratitude tries to return more than has been received. The lover is not content with superficial knowledge of the beloved, but strives for intimate discovery and entrance. Holding steady in danger is more important than taking the offensive. Magnificence consorts with liberality in its material, with courage in its mode. The prayer of which we speak here is an act of intelligence, not of will. Distinctions drawn by the mind are not necessarily equivalent to distinctions in reality. In meditating on the universal truth of beings, primary philosophy must also scrutinize the general setting of truth. Because philosophy arises from awe a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder. All mutables bring us back to a first immutable. The desire for goodness, beauty, peace, does not end up with different things. A contingent event escapes certitude because it is future, not because it is present. Mercy is supremely God'seffectively rather than affectively. Jo Calderone --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Can't resist, so I have to take advantage of a utility I wrote that > allows me to highlight a block of text on any Web page and do > a word count on it, without having to read it. > > Sal's post: 33 words > > MZ's reply, trying to suck her into an argument: 967 words > > My original comment, posted 10 minutes before MZ's: > > > The two worst offenders on this forum are classic examples > > of this. Someone says something in 20 words that offends > > them because it runs counter to their world view, and they > > feel compelled to reply in 200 words, sometimes more, > > taunting the original poster into "getting into it" with them, > > and defending his or her offending statement. > > What I love about total narcissists is that they are so self-absorbed > that they don't realize that their own egoscreeds *demonstrate* > the very things their critics have said about them. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Jim, Judy and now, it appears, Robin, > > can't get Barry to engage in their > > childishness, so instead they have > > to go at him indirectly, insulting > > him amongst themselves. Mean-spirited > > and desperate. Sad, really. > > > > Sal > > > > Sal, > > > > You refer to my "childishness", my "insulting him amongst > themselves", and that this is "mean-spirited and desperate." That it is > "sad, really". > > > > Although I have enjoyed a somewhat cheerful exchange of posts in the > past with you, I am going to hold you accountable for the absurdity of > every one of these charges and characterizations of my posts regarding > your friend. > > > > First of all, there is not one word you have used to describe what I > did that comes from your experience. In order to make believable such a > judgment as you have made, you have to demonstrate that you have made > contact with an experience out of which these words arise. You haven't > done this. You have instead, decided to construe my posts within a point > of view which is predetermined and non-interactive with the reality of > what those posts are. > > > > I challenge you to tell demonstrate anything in what I wrote about > your friend which in any way whatsoever warrants any of the words you > have applied to my posts (about him). > > > > This is a serious moral and existential failure on your part to do > justice to the spirit within which I wrote those posts about your > friend. > > > > I deny categorically that anything you say here is true, and if there > is the slightest truth in what you say, then you should experience, in > reading this post, the false relationship that exists between my > implicit justification of those posts (the honourability of my > intention, as well as the substance of what I wrote) and those posts as > they registered inside of you when you read them. Just because you > object to what someone has said about someone you like, before you go to > attack that person, you still must enter into an innocent and objective > context of experiencewhich can then inspire you in your defence of > your friend . Else what you end up saying tends to vindicate the critic, > because your criticism of that critic bears zero relationship to what > was actually said, and therefore goes towards proving that critic right, > and your defence of your friend, an act of arbitrary and reflexive > loyalty having nothing to do with the actual facts. > > > > Because who knows? maybe you're dead right and I *am* mean-spirited, > desperate, childish, and insulting. That would be sad, really, because > as far as I know no one in my entire life has accused me of being > thisI have my faults but I pride myself on at least avoiding all > the ones which you direct my way in this post of yours. > > > > In order to be credible, and for me to respect your judgment of me, > Sal, you have to let me have access to the experience out of which you > have formed this assessment of me. How to do that?It is very simple: > read your friend's comments about me (e.g. what he said about my > critique of Adyashanti); then read my posts about your friend (yes, even > in my conversation with Judy). Also you will want to hold fast to your > settled opinion of your friend that you bring to this exercise (and this > is quite permissible in this exercise; however you must not let that > opinion preclude you from at least contemplating opinions that may > contradict your own opinionor test them). > > > > Let all these things play and interact inside your experience; if, > after having done this, you still reach the same conclusion as expressed > in this post, then fine: I will accept this as your sincere and > thoughtful judgment of me. Why? Because then you will have revealed the > experience out of which you formed this judgment; it will be there > inside the context within which you write. The post above misses the > target so badly that I feel sympathy for you. It *is* possible to say > the the same thing, but if you want to be believable you must carry with > you the experience which compelled you to say what you said. > > > > And that experience is just not there. I am not mean-spirited; I am > not childish; I am not desperate; and I never insult people. > > > > However, all of what you say about me, ironically enough, could be > saidalthough you are not consciously culpable in thisabout > your post, Sal. > > > > Hey, Sal: let's get right down to it. If there is *any* truth in your > post, then this post of mine simply becomes the very data that I can > claim is not there in anything I said about your friend. Because if you > are rightin the very leastin what you say about me, then, > obviously, I have, consciously or unconsciously, condemned myself a > second time, only in this instance you have more direct proof. Because > always the justification for doing what is wrong always carries with it > a greater stench of falseness than the actual deed itself. > > > > So, Sal, I am prepared for it: Take me down. And, if you can, please > perform this necessary act of humiliation of me with a little more moxie > than your friend has brought to this exercise (see my most recent post > in response to his latest claim of being persecuted by the 'attention > vampires'). > > > > Believe me, Sal, you aren't in your weak and careless defence of your > friend, doing him any favours. > > > > That said: have a great Monday. I mustn't let the present ruin my > favourable impression of the past. If I had known you were so committed > to the integrity and martyrdom of your friend, I would never have > insulted him, let alone stooped to being childish. But I don't have a > life, and if you took this into account you would at least understand > why, in this instance I felt desperate and thus had to be mean-spirited. > > > > Sad, really. > > > > You still there, Sal? > > >
