"...no love, (no) Ravi,...." Oh - how must have my poor dear old Aunt suffered? How long did she suffer, at the hands of these frigid, frozen, frosty Neo-Advaitins? My heart is ravaged by an unrestrained, unabated, unconditioned fury. How glad must my aunt be, to be finally reunited with her loving nephew !!!
On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Share Long <sharelon...@yahoo.com> wrote: dear Ann, I've been on forums that had ONLY that kind of discussion! No crop circles, no surf reports, no amazing poetry, no movie TV reviews, no Orion photos, no love, Ravi, no Assumption paintings, no moving music, etc. No nothing but Being and Nothingness 24/7. Ok, exaggerating for effect. I'm just sayin FFL is fun in ways that other forums aren't. Hmmm, that doesn't sound right either but gotta leave for a bit. Put on a black turtleneck sweater, sip some espresso, smoke some Galoise and simply imagine that the Seine is flowing by and Camus and Sartre are at the table with you (-: PS Still working on my naughty name... From: awoelflebater <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > >> <anartaxius@> wrote: > >> <snip> > >>> The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence > >>> of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold > >>> that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' > >>> seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the > >>> self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, > >>> which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest > >>> quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon > >>> makes it less ambiguous. > >> > >> Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. > >> "For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature" > >> is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed > >> by a semicolon. > > > > It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although > > in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno "gets" 'since' > > in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as > > an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) > > > > Let me try again - first the original: > > 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's > presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest > quivering stress without absorbing it.' > > I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: > > [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] > The self is the individuating existence of a nature | > God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest > quivering stress without absorbing it.' > > I can see it can be read this way: > > 'xxx xxxxx [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] > God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that > self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' > > I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the > world: > > The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being. > > But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because > absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. > So then I am forced to write: > > The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being. > > There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me > think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is > now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears > altogether. > > If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so > why not then: > > The self is nature, which is absolute being. > > Why have two definitions for the same?: > > The self is absolute being. > > Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification. > > We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' > is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. > Pick one. OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of it. >
