oops Something given and allow for (y)our altering mystical experiences: http://tinyurl.com/3zpgn6w http://tinyurl.com/3k4g4nl http://tinyurl.com/3vf4lls History:The Bombing of Monte Cassino TIME:Monday, Feb. 28, 1944 http://tinyurl.com/yepd6x6 Monastery destroyed after translation slip by British intelligence officer http://tinyurl.com/3bdckck
time to join my Super-radiance partner.....good night all of you no no there is no space left [:D] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda <no_reply@...> wrote: > > MZ having a most peculiar view of God "witnessing" the actual death of > the supernatural context of creation. > Is trying to get mystical experiences after the Allied Bombing of Mt > Cassino, really ambiguous at best? > > Is it not "strange" for a Christian/Catholic not to believe in > resurrection?Or is it just a hero style pose a la Nietsche,''To give > style'' to his character -- certainly a great and rare art according to > Friedrich Nietzsche? [;)] * > Something given and allow for (y)our altering mystical experiences: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcfMUHCV5bw&feature=related > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWw_ju_E2U&feature=related > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI5QB0uM5Vs&feature=related > > > History:The Bombing of Monte Cassino > TIME:Monday, Feb. 28, 1944 > http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,796392-1,00.html > Error led to bombing of Monte Cassino > > Monastery destroyed after translation slip by British intelligence > officer > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/04/johnezard > > > So may be just a "balls-up" > BTW.If the actual German message received by the allied radio operator > contained as many grammatical errors as the German in guardian's > article, I'm not surprised confusion ensued > e.g.'Ist Abt in Kloster?' and was answered, 'Ja in Kloster mit Monchen'. > ="Ist der Abt im Kloster?"-"Ja im Kloster mit den Moenchen" etc etc > The translation was then 'Is the HQ in the abbey?' - the word 'Abt' > being taken as an abbreviation for 'Abteilung' (a battalion) rather than > abbot. > The key point is that all language contains built-in "redundancy" - we > hear only a proportion of any verbal information that reaches us. In > contrast of course to all sorts of mystics, who, fairer and > foolisher(Nietzsche), talk of "inspiration"and vision without any > "redundancy" ? [:D] > > *But giving "style to one's character" may applies to the > life-form of the individual and its identity. As soon as we talk about > `form' (like in `life-form'), we certainly talk about > the task of forming. And as soon as we do not assume that life-forms are > something given and allow for our altering them, we are authorized to > raise the question of what kind of `stylesheet' applies to the > task of forming. > Does all pose of a "stylesheet" as though his real opinions had been > discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, > divinely indifferent dialectic , whereas, in fact, a prejudiced > proposition, idea, or "suggestion," which is generally a heart's desire > abstracted and refined, is defended by with arguments sought out after > the event? >
