More on our marriage inventory [Archive]

shinypenny

11-30-2003, 07:48 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<291120032310476796%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <NG0yb.309820$pT1.141720@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: he really should just go for broke - things can't get worse. What do you mean by "go for broke?" -- bare my soul to my wife, commit adultery, dirvorce my wife, or what? I can see things getting worse with any one of those alternatives. Ted

Oh. So you are content to maintain the current status quo, because it
is better than any of the forseeable alternatives.

You might want to spend some time exploring what it is about the
status quo that you find comforting (perhaps "comforting" is not the
right word, but it's early in the a.m. so I hope you get my drift).

Is it merely fear of the alternatives that keep you where you are? Or
is there something else at play here. For example, might you deep down
feel you don't really deserve any better? Or does the current level of
dissatisfaction add something to your life (i.e., for some people
constant romantic dissatisfaction might drive them to throw their
energies into their career).

I am also curious to know how you would react if it was your wife who
wanted a divorce. Would you be upset or feel relief? Would you panic
and feel terrified? Would you try to talk her out of that decision?

Likewise, if your wife was out of the picture tomorrow, do you see
yourself striking up a new relationship (with the pharmacist or
someone else) or do you think you'd find yourself hesitating?

jen

Joy

11-30-2003, 08:29 AM

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311300748.1f1d4a98@posting.google.c om... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:<291120032310476796%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <NG0yb.309820$pT1.141720@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: he really should just go for broke - things can't get worse. What do you mean by "go for broke?" -- bare my soul to my wife, commit adultery, dirvorce my wife, or what? I can see things getting worse with any one of those alternatives.

Anytime there is change, there is risk. One very important point to keep in
mind is that there is also an opportunity cost in NOT taking a risk. In
your case, it appears that there is zero chance of getting the improvement
in your marriage that you want WITHOUT doing things like baring your sould
to each other.
Oh. So you are content to maintain the current status quo, because it is better than any of the forseeable alternatives. You might want to spend some time exploring what it is about the status quo that you find comforting (perhaps "comforting" is not the right word, but it's early in the a.m. so I hope you get my drift).

Ted is clearly getting something out of the status quo, or he wouldn't be
clinging to it so desperately.

Seeker

11-30-2003, 07:37 PM

In article <7Toyb.33885$W7.15443@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Joy
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:
Anytime there is change, there is risk. One very important point to keep in mind is that there is also an opportunity cost in NOT taking a risk. In your case, it appears that there is zero chance of getting the improvement in your marriage that you want WITHOUT doing things like baring your sould to each other.
What if the improvement simply is not possible? Then doing nothing
*is* the right course, because doing anything cannot make things better
and is very likely to make things worse. Do I believe that? Not
really -- but it is one of the possible views of reality I do have to
consider and can't reject completely.
Oh. So you are content to maintain the current status quo, because it is better than any of the forseeable alternatives. You might want to spend some time exploring what it is about the status quo that you find comforting (perhaps "comforting" is not the right word, but it's early in the a.m. so I hope you get my drift). Ted is clearly getting something out of the status quo, or he wouldn't be clinging to it so desperately.

You aren't the first one who has said that, or something like it.
Other than avoiding the fear that anything I do will make things worse,
what do *you* think it might be? I can't think of anything.

Ted

Seeker

11-30-2003, 07:40 PM

In article <UUnyb.318356$pT1.15287@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB
<jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:
To almost anyone else, those things would seem like good things.

really??? like whom? whenever is adultery a good thing? whenever,
except in the case of mental or physical abuse, is divorce a good
thing?
whenever is shattering the image someone has of you a good thing unless
you are certain they can recover from it?

Ted

Tracey

11-30-2003, 07:54 PM

Joy wrote:Ted is clearly getting something out of the status quo,or he wouldn't be clinging to it so desperately.

Then Ted wrote:You aren't the first one who has said that, or somethinglike it. Other than avoiding the fear that anything Ido will make things worse, what do *you* think it might be?I can't think of anything.

I'm not the 'you' you asked, but I can think of a few.

You don't believe you deserve to be happy so you put off
doing anything to bring that about.

You're afraid that if your wife does change in the ways
you want her to, you'll still be unhappy, causing *you*
to have to do something about it.

You're afraid that your wife *won't* be able to change
in the ways you want her to and then, again, you'll have
to figure out some way to be happy without those changes.

You're afraid your wife will leave you, leaving you 'free'
for a relationship with one of the women you've loved over
the years, but you'll find out that they won't make you
happy either.

I know I'm leaving out possibilities...

Tracey

Joy

11-30-2003, 08:36 PM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:301120032137468127%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <7Toyb.33885$W7.15443@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Joy <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: Anytime there is change, there is risk. One very important point to keep
in mind is that there is also an opportunity cost in NOT taking a risk. In your case, it appears that there is zero chance of getting the
improvement in your marriage that you want WITHOUT doing things like baring your
sould to each other. What if the improvement simply is not possible? Then doing nothing *is* the right course, because doing anything cannot make things better and is very likely to make things worse.

I would disagree with that based on your previous posts, in which you
indicated that your marriage is unacceptable to you. I don't consider
staying stuck in an unacceptable situation to be the right course.
Personally, I'd do *something* - because you already know you don't like the
situation you've got. Sounds to me like you don't have anything to lose -
you know it is bad now, so if you do something it might be bad later, or it
might be better later - so you can take a 100% chance of bad, or at least
some possiblity of better. Play the odds.

Do I believe that? Not really -- but it is one of the possible views of reality I do have to consider and can't reject completely.

You know, you've raised ambivalence to an art form. Do you waffle like this
about other parts of your life, or are you able to be decisive in other
areas?

Ted is clearly getting something out of the status quo, or he wouldn't
be clinging to it so desperately. You aren't the first one who has said that, or something like it. Other than avoiding the fear that anything I do will make things worse, what do *you* think it might be? I can't think of anything.

I don't know you at all, so all I could do is speculate. It is, however,
quite true that when people are clinging to something they are getting
*something* out of it. There's always some sort of payoff. Nobody but you
(or possibly your wife), however, is in a position to figure out what it
is.

Bill

11-30-2003, 09:06 PM

Joy wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:301120032137468127%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <7Toyb.33885$W7.15443@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Joy <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: Anytime there is change, there is risk. One very important point to keep in mind is that there is also an opportunity cost in NOT taking a risk. In your case, it appears that there is zero chance of getting the improvement in your marriage that you want WITHOUT doing things like baring your sould to each other. What if the improvement simply is not possible? Then doing nothing *is* the right course, because doing anything cannot make things better and is very likely to make things worse. I would disagree with that based on your previous posts, in which you indicated that your marriage is unacceptable to you. I don't consider staying stuck in an unacceptable situation to be the right course. Personally, I'd do *something* - because you already know you don't like the situation you've got. Sounds to me like you don't have anything to lose - you know it is bad now, so if you do something it might be bad later, or it might be better later - so you can take a 100% chance of bad, or at least some possiblity of better. Play the odds. Do I believe that? Not really -- but it is one of the possible views of reality I do have to consider and can't reject completely. You know, you've raised ambivalence to an art form. Do you waffle like this about other parts of your life, or are you able to be decisive in other areas? Ted is clearly getting something out of the status quo, or he wouldn't be clinging to it so desperately. You aren't the first one who has said that, or something like it. Other than avoiding the fear that anything I do will make things worse, what do *you* think it might be? I can't think of anything. I don't know you at all, so all I could do is speculate. It is, however, quite true that when people are clinging to something they are getting *something* out of it. There's always some sort of payoff. Nobody but you (or possibly your wife), however, is in a position to figure out what it is.

Perhaps it's a sense of security, in not rocking the boat. Or maybe habit -
once you "have been a victim" for so long, it gets hard to break out of the
mold, just like (most) anything else. And especially as you get older...

Doug Anderson

11-30-2003, 09:31 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <UUnyb.318356$pT1.15287@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: To almost anyone else, those things would seem like good things. really??? like whom? whenever is adultery a good thing?

I'll skip that one.
whenever, except in the case of mental or physical abuse, is divorce a good thing?

When two partners are just wrong for each other, and are never going
to be happy with each other, then divorce is a good thing.
whenever is shattering the image someone has of you a good thing unless you are certain they can recover from it?

Ah. You are taking responsibility for, and thus infantilizing your
spouse. Is _that_ a good thing?

DrLith

12-02-2003, 09:28 PM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:301120032137468127%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... You aren't the first one who has said that, or something like it. Other than avoiding the fear that anything I do will make things worse, what do *you* think it might be? I can't think of anything.

Martyr complex?

Bill

12-02-2003, 09:39 PM

DrLith wrote: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:301120032137468127%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... You aren't the first one who has said that, or something like it. Other than avoiding the fear that anything I do will make things worse, what do *you* think it might be? I can't think of anything. Martyr complex?

Seems very perceptive, Kathy. But why would anyone want to be a martyr for
the rest of their life? What would be the point?

Doug Anderson

12-04-2003, 03:30 PM

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
What makes me upset with you, Ted, is I suspect you're better than all this. I don't think you're the type to be a hypocrite or a sinner, but unfortunately, the way I view things, you are sinning against your wife each and every day that you fume in silence or come here and say these things about her.

I agree. It feels to me like Ted is locked into some set of
perceptions whic is preventing him from being the best he could be.
And you are a hypocrite, too. You're just like the person that does charitable works for the poor, then comes home and complains that the poor people all smell funny. If you are going to make this grand sacrifice and remain in your marriage because God has asked you to take on this punishment/suffering, then do so and shut up about it. I don't remember Jesus complaining about his cross.

A minor quibble about a good post: I wasn't personally there, the
gospels do record some complaints. Matthew, for example, records
Jesus crying "My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Although Ted's own
crucible isn't quite analogous to being pinned to a cross.)

shinypenny

12-05-2003, 06:10 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<RsPzb.304280$275.1044880@attbi_s53>...
A minor quibble about a good post: I wasn't personally there, the gospels do record some complaints. Matthew, for example, records Jesus crying "My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Although Ted's own crucible isn't quite analogous to being pinned to a cross.)

Yes - Jesus whined to *God.* He didn't complain endlessly and
uncharitably about Matthew and the rest of humanity, for whom he was
dying.

Now, could you just imagine that? Jesus hanging on the cross crying,
"You stupid humans! If you weren't such sinners I wouldn't be going to
my death!" I wonder.... if he had said that instead of the more
ominous, "My God, why have you forsaken me?", then perhaps mankind
wouldn't have felt so guilty as to build a huge religion around his
death? You know, in an attempt to show that God had not forsaken him,
that his death wasn't all in vain..... Hmmmmm......

Anyway, I believe that God expects us to debate him and ask questions,
instead of accepting everything hook, line and sinker. He wants a
dialogue with each and every one of us. It's through this personal
dialogue that we grow in our understanding of God.

As for Ted's situation, I highly doubt God intended to put him in a
situation that compels Ted to sin daily -- in his heart and mind --
against his wife. Time to go back and revisit the universal
principles, and see how they fit with God's supposed plan for Ted and
his wife. God's not going to ask any of us to do something that would
break those universal principles of love and forgiveness.

jen

Doug Anderson

12-05-2003, 06:57 AM

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<RsPzb.304280$275.1044880@attbi_s53>... A minor quibble about a good post: I wasn't personally there, the gospels do record some complaints. Matthew, for example, records Jesus crying "My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Although Ted's own crucible isn't quite analogous to being pinned to a cross.) Yes - Jesus whined to *God.* He didn't complain endlessly and uncharitably about Matthew and the rest of humanity, for whom he was dying. Now, could you just imagine that? Jesus hanging on the cross crying, "You stupid humans! If you weren't such sinners I wouldn't be going to my death!" I wonder.... if he had said that instead of the more ominous, "My God, why have you forsaken me?", then perhaps mankind wouldn't have felt so guilty as to build a huge religion around his death? You know, in an attempt to show that God had not forsaken him, that his death wasn't all in vain..... Hmmmmm......

Maybe he could have just blamed his parents for it all. "Mary and
Joseph, if you'd just raised me right, I wouldn't have been so nuts
looking for love that I got myself crucified!"

Either way it has a sort of "Life of Brian" cast. (And no, this isn't
a reference to any usenet poster, past, present or future.)

Actually I have a whole lot of trouble with the whole "Jesus was put
here to die for our sins concept anyway," so having this conversation
involves more suspension of dibelief than I can usually maintain.
Anyway, I believe that God expects us to debate him and ask questions, instead of accepting everything hook, line and sinker. He wants a dialogue with each and every one of us. It's through this personal dialogue that we grow in our understanding of God. As for Ted's situation, I highly doubt God intended to put him in a situation that compels Ted to sin daily -- in his heart and mind -- against his wife. Time to go back and revisit the universal principles, and see how they fit with God's supposed plan for Ted and his wife. God's not going to ask any of us to do something that would break those universal principles of love and forgiveness.

That is what I would think too, if I believed in God, I guess.
(Whatever such hypotheticals are worth.) But Ted seems pretty sure of
his place in the universal plan, so it seems like a tough thing for
him to go back and question it.

shinypenny

12-05-2003, 02:28 PM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Q11Ab.310292$ao4.1057202@attbi_s51>... shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<RsPzb.304280$275.1044880@attbi_s53>... A minor quibble about a good post: I wasn't personally there, the gospels do record some complaints. Matthew, for example, records Jesus crying "My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Although Ted's own crucible isn't quite analogous to being pinned to a cross.) Yes - Jesus whined to *God.* He didn't complain endlessly and uncharitably about Matthew and the rest of humanity, for whom he was dying. Now, could you just imagine that? Jesus hanging on the cross crying, "You stupid humans! If you weren't such sinners I wouldn't be going to my death!" I wonder.... if he had said that instead of the more ominous, "My God, why have you forsaken me?", then perhaps mankind wouldn't have felt so guilty as to build a huge religion around his death? You know, in an attempt to show that God had not forsaken him, that his death wasn't all in vain..... Hmmmmm...... Maybe he could have just blamed his parents for it all. "Mary and Joseph, if you'd just raised me right, I wouldn't have been so nuts looking for love that I got myself crucified!" Either way it has a sort of "Life of Brian" cast. (And no, this isn't a reference to any usenet poster, past, present or future.)

I loved that movie! My ex refused to see it when it came out. He
thought it was sacriligious. Didn't get to see it until after the
divorce. My favorite part is the Deux Ex Machina scene when the aliens
rescue Brian.

Actually I have a whole lot of trouble with the whole "Jesus was put here to die for our sins concept anyway," so having this conversation involves more suspension of dibelief than I can usually maintain.

Well, did Jesus ever get a chance to tell us that's why he died? Or
did we all just assume? I dunno...

What I get most from the whole New Testament is the personal
relationship Jesus had with God. I think that was really cool. And the
message to me is that we can all have such a relationship if we are so
inclined.

Anyway, I believe that God expects us to debate him and ask questions, instead of accepting everything hook, line and sinker. He wants a dialogue with each and every one of us. It's through this personal dialogue that we grow in our understanding of God. As for Ted's situation, I highly doubt God intended to put him in a situation that compels Ted to sin daily -- in his heart and mind -- against his wife. Time to go back and revisit the universal principles, and see how they fit with God's supposed plan for Ted and his wife. God's not going to ask any of us to do something that would break those universal principles of love and forgiveness. That is what I would think too, if I believed in God, I guess. (Whatever such hypotheticals are worth.) But Ted seems pretty sure of his place in the universal plan, so it seems like a tough thing for him to go back and question it.

And the thing is, I do believe God has a place for Ted in his
universal plan. I also think God did reveal himself to Ted. I don't
doubt that for a minute. I just think that Ted hasn't quite figured
out what that revelation fully means.
I don't presume to have that answer (I think that sort of thing is
quite personal between God and whomever had the revelation), but I'm
certain it's not what he's doing now.

I also know it is okay to trust God. I suppose if it were me, I'd put
myself in God's hands, take a deep breath, and go ahead and be honest
with my spouse, figuring if God really intends us to be together
forever, that it'll be alright in the end. I have trusted God in the
past, and he's never steered me wrong yet!

jen

Seeker

12-05-2003, 08:08 PM

In article <c8cb5319.0312051428.4c64393e@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
And the thing is, I do believe God has a place for Ted in his universal plan. I also think God did reveal himself to Ted. I don't doubt that for a minute. I just think that Ted hasn't quite figured out what that revelation fully means. I don't presume to have that answer (I think that sort of thing is quite personal between God and whomever had the revelation), but I'm certain it's not what he's doing now.

Jen (and Doug) -- I want to acknowledge this particular turn in the
thread and make a few comments now; I'd like to respond in detail but
i can see how I might not get around to it and I don't want to seem to
ignore some important topics.

First, Jen, I appreciate your acceptance of what I've told you about
some of my spiritual journey. Believe it or not, that does mean a lot.

I have wrestled with God about what's going on for quite some time --
for at least three if not four years. (I'd have to look up the dates
of what I'd call my first my major crisis of confidence to be sure -- I
have a lousy sense of time.) It is a topic I revisit with my spiritual
director frequently. At times I have received very distinct, if not
always clear, answers from God; at others, nothing. At times I can
tell that God is involved by the pattern of events and an occasional
sene of confirmation (what the reformed protestants call the testimony
of the Spirit). At other times the "message" is much more direct and
concrete (although not always unambiguous -- I know *where* it's coming
from, but not necessarily exactly what it means!) A lot of the time
it is very clear what's going on in one part of my life, but in others
it's a mystery. Sometimes some people *do* get what I guess you
would call long-range plans or visions -- some sense of where things
are headed. I have not had that -- with one exception (that has
nothing to do with my marriage) I've received or sensed nothing more
than short-range direction.

For thousands of years, if not more, people have tried to figure out
what God is up to during those times when it is not clear. I have a
hunch that unless God tells us, we're just speculating, and can very
easily get it wrong. But it is clear that there *are* times when we
seem to get either stuck or are wandering as if we were lost --
sometimes that is our fault, but at others it does seem, for reasons
we don't know, that it is what God wants us to do. There are some
indications I'm in one of those stuck places right now -- both in my
inner journey and in my outer one. Whether it's my fault or not
getting past that stuckness isn't easy nor necessarily something I can
do by myself. But we're working on it!

Although there is a *slight* possibility I'm meant to be suffering for
the rest of my marriage (whether silently or not), I agree with you
that is very unlikely to be the case. In John's gospel Christ is
quoted as saying "I came that they may have life, and have it
abundantly." I believe we *are* meant to enjoy this life and the
pleasures of being mortal. (However you are able to make sense out of
the life of Christ, I think one can say that God would never have
decided to become human if being human weren't essentially a good thing
to be!) In Genesis, myth though it may be, God looks at the world he
has created, including mankind, and says it is good -- even very, very
good. I know that for the most part I am where I am supposed to be --
I can even see, yes, how falling in love with the pharmacist was part
of the current plan. (There are too many interesting connections for
it to be happenstance or just my actions.) What I don't know is where
it goes from here -- what the next steps are. I am pretty sure that,
yes, it does require my wife and I becoming emotionally intimate --
what I don't know is whether I have to blunder through how that is to
happen or if I'll get a little more guidance than I have! I generally
do agree with your comment that in some way what I do in detail
probably doesnt't matter -- that it will turn out all right no matter
what. But I also know that people *can* screw up, so I'm not quite
willing to act in complete confidence of that. While I admit to
having doubts from time to time, yes I do trust God -- but it still is
hard to act on that trust. (I also understand, to the extent one can,
why that is, so I don't beat myself up too badly over it.)

That's about all I have time for tonight; I probably should sit on it
and reflect on it before posting but I'm not going to.

Ted

Hal Sadofsky

12-05-2003, 11:50 PM

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Q11Ab.310292$ao4.1057202@attbi_s51>... Either way it has a sort of "Life of Brian" cast. (And no, this isn't a reference to any usenet poster, past, present or future.) I loved that movie! My ex refused to see it when it came out. He thought it was sacriligious. Didn't get to see it until after the divorce. My favorite part is the Deux Ex Machina scene when the aliens rescue Brian.

I liked the Sermon on the Mount. "Blessed are the Cheesemakers."
"The what?" "He's referring to all manufacturers of dairy products."
Actually I have a whole lot of trouble with the whole "Jesus was put here to die for our sins concept anyway," so having this conversation involves more suspension of dibelief than I can usually maintain. Well, did Jesus ever get a chance to tell us that's why he died? Or did we all just assume? I dunno...

I thought this was Christian doctrine, though I'm sure it isn't
universal christian doctrine (I'm not certain there _is_ any universal
christian doctrine).
What I get most from the whole New Testament is the personal relationship Jesus had with God. I think that was really cool. And the message to me is that we can all have such a relationship if we are so inclined.

Sounds like a nice message. I don't see that message in the NT
myself. After all Jesus _was_ god, so having a personal relationship
with him isn't so phenomenal in that case.
And the thing is, I do believe God has a place for Ted in his universal plan. I also think God did reveal himself to Ted. I don't doubt that for a minute. I just think that Ted hasn't quite figured out what that revelation fully means. I don't presume to have that answer (I think that sort of thing is quite personal between God and whomever had the revelation), but I'm certain it's not what he's doing now. I also know it is okay to trust God. I suppose if it were me, I'd put myself in God's hands, take a deep breath, and go ahead and be honest with my spouse, figuring if God really intends us to be together forever, that it'll be alright in the end. I have trusted God in the past, and he's never steered me wrong yet!

It does seem reasonable that if Ted believes in god, then he should
believe that god oughtn't to expect him (Ted) to be dishonest and to
withhold his true self from his marriage.

urf

12-06-2003, 07:00 AM

A question Ted,

Is your belief in God confined to the religion that you have
been given or does it encompass spirituality without dogma?

A friend told me a story the other day. It goes like this.

God and the Devil were out taking a stroll. They came upon a universe
filled with beautiful sparkling stars. God said this is so wondrous, I'll
call it religion. The Devil spoke and said.... but it is so chaotic, let me
organize it for you.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:051220032208037186%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <c8cb5319.0312051428.4c64393e@posting.google.com>, shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: And the thing is, I do believe God has a place for Ted in his universal plan. I also think God did reveal himself to Ted. I don't doubt that for a minute. I just think that Ted hasn't quite figured out what that revelation fully means. I don't presume to have that answer (I think that sort of thing is quite personal between God and whomever had the revelation), but I'm certain it's not what he's doing now. Jen (and Doug) -- I want to acknowledge this particular turn in the thread and make a few comments now; I'd like to respond in detail but i can see how I might not get around to it and I don't want to seem to ignore some important topics. First, Jen, I appreciate your acceptance of what I've told you about some of my spiritual journey. Believe it or not, that does mean a lot. I have wrestled with God about what's going on for quite some time -- for at least three if not four years. (I'd have to look up the dates of what I'd call my first my major crisis of confidence to be sure -- I have a lousy sense of time.) It is a topic I revisit with my spiritual director frequently. At times I have received very distinct, if not always clear, answers from God; at others, nothing. At times I can tell that God is involved by the pattern of events and an occasional sene of confirmation (what the reformed protestants call the testimony of the Spirit). At other times the "message" is much more direct and concrete (although not always unambiguous -- I know *where* it's coming from, but not necessarily exactly what it means!) A lot of the time it is very clear what's going on in one part of my life, but in others it's a mystery. Sometimes some people *do* get what I guess you would call long-range plans or visions -- some sense of where things are headed. I have not had that -- with one exception (that has nothing to do with my marriage) I've received or sensed nothing more than short-range direction. For thousands of years, if not more, people have tried to figure out what God is up to during those times when it is not clear. I have a hunch that unless God tells us, we're just speculating, and can very easily get it wrong. But it is clear that there *are* times when we seem to get either stuck or are wandering as if we were lost -- sometimes that is our fault, but at others it does seem, for reasons we don't know, that it is what God wants us to do. There are some indications I'm in one of those stuck places right now -- both in my inner journey and in my outer one. Whether it's my fault or not getting past that stuckness isn't easy nor necessarily something I can do by myself. But we're working on it! Although there is a *slight* possibility I'm meant to be suffering for the rest of my marriage (whether silently or not), I agree with you that is very unlikely to be the case. In John's gospel Christ is quoted as saying "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." I believe we *are* meant to enjoy this life and the pleasures of being mortal. (However you are able to make sense out of the life of Christ, I think one can say that God would never have decided to become human if being human weren't essentially a good thing to be!) In Genesis, myth though it may be, God looks at the world he has created, including mankind, and says it is good -- even very, very good. I know that for the most part I am where I am supposed to be -- I can even see, yes, how falling in love with the pharmacist was part of the current plan. (There are too many interesting connections for it to be happenstance or just my actions.) What I don't know is where it goes from here -- what the next steps are. I am pretty sure that, yes, it does require my wife and I becoming emotionally intimate -- what I don't know is whether I have to blunder through how that is to happen or if I'll get a little more guidance than I have! I generally do agree with your comment that in some way what I do in detail probably doesnt't matter -- that it will turn out all right no matter what. But I also know that people *can* screw up, so I'm not quite willing to act in complete confidence of that. While I admit to having doubts from time to time, yes I do trust God -- but it still is hard to act on that trust. (I also understand, to the extent one can, why that is, so I don't beat myself up too badly over it.) That's about all I have time for tonight; I probably should sit on it and reflect on it before posting but I'm not going to. Ted

Seeker

12-06-2003, 06:19 PM

In article <2amAb.1959$_c4.710@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
Is your belief in God confined to the religion that you have been given or does it encompass spirituality without dogma?

The short answer to that is my belief *in* God comes from my own
personal experience, but my belief's *about* God must of necessity be
largely formed by the collective experience of others, informed and
guided by my current experience. Over the past six years or so I'd
say I've consciously been aware of God's presence for a total of less
than two hours -- how much can you get to know about someone,
especially if they aren't very talkative, in only two hours? (I'm not
complaining. Two hours with God is more than most people, I fear, have
in an entire lifetime.) I really don't know what you mean by
"spirituality without dogma" -- the moment two or more people try to
compare their experiences of God and try to learn something from it you
are going to get "dogma" -- "this is what God said or did this is what
it means." What is helpful is that I have little trouble with asking
questions about what those others have said and written and from time
to time I am able to sense when God is trying to tell me when something
is important or not.

Spirituality I believe *must* have three components -- your present,
direct experience of God, the experience of those in the past, and a
community of supportive and informed but questioning people you can
talk to who themselves are engaged in the same sort of journey. I
suspect what you call "dogma" is a spirituality that only has the
middle component (codified tradition) -- but spirituality *without*
dogma is either just the first or the first and third -- and that's not
good either!

One of my favorite authors is the Islamic Sufi mystic Rumi. I loved
Martin Buber's "Tales of the Hasidim" when I read it maybe 35 years
ago. The "soul friend" I've written about is partially Native American
and her spirituality was flavored by that tradition and we had an
interesting conversation once finding the parallels between their
notion of "gifts of medicine" and the Christian notion of "gifts of
the spirit". (It turns out she had been given a form of the gift of
discernment of spirits and later the gift of healing.) I have
comfortably worshipped in fundamentalist evangelical, liberal
protestant, and mainstream Roman Catholic churches. Every other
Thursday evening I talk about God with an ever changing group of
members of a prison half-way house: most are black Baptists (which is
a novelty for me up here in the north.) One of my peer spiritual
directors hasn't belonged to a church in years -- and yet she and I
have no trouble sensing and at times even visibly seeing where God is
at work in the life of the other.

Is there any "one true religion" or "one path" to God? No. Are all
equally valid? Also no. There may be quite a variety of "right"
paths, but sadly there are probably even more "wrong" paths -- paths
which at best come to a dead-end, but at worst do lead to destruction
of oneself, or one's soul or of others.
A friend told me a story the other day. It goes like this. God and the Devil were out taking a stroll. They came upon a universe filled with beautiful sparkling stars. God said this is so wondrous, I'll call it religion. The Devil spoke and said.... but it is so chaotic, let me organize it for you.

I like it!

Ted

shinypenny

12-07-2003, 07:06 AM

Seeker

12-07-2003, 09:01 AM

In article <c8cb5319.0312070706.2dd036af@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ted (and probably Urf, too)- As an aside, yesterday I started reading the book, "Bee Season." Although I'm not finished yet, I think you'd like it.

It does indeed sound like one I'd like. Thanks. My "soul friend" had
an LSD experience too -- but hers was probably real, for later ones
when stone sober were sort of a confirmation of it. In one of his
books my spiritual director contains the line "we seek the God of
experience, not the experience of God."

(I'll get to your other recent post eventually...)

Ted

Ralph DuBose

12-09-2003, 07:56 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<061220032019175641%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <2amAb.1959$_c4.710@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Is your belief in God confined to the religion that you have been given or does it encompass spirituality without dogma? The short answer to that is my belief *in* God comes from my own personal experience, but my belief's *about* God must of necessity be largely formed by the collective experience of others, informed and guided by my current experience. Over the past six years or so I'd say I've consciously been aware of God's presence for a total of less than two hours --

Whoa. Full stop. You say that over the past 6 years you have, for
all practical, statistical purposes hardly ever been aware of Gods
presence. Then what was it that has been filling the "God shaped void"
in the depths of your soul?
You make a big point of emphasizing the importance of knowing God
on the level of personal experience then you tell us that day by day,
9999% of the time, what you experience is something quite different.
If God-consciousness is so vanishingly rare for you then most of
the time you are filled with.... what? Your own unsanctified thoughts
and emotions? Mechanical stimulus-response type of monkey-mindedness?
My point is that your own religious formulations end up painting
you as almost totally estranged from the God you seek. This is not a
benign place to be. How can you keep from cutting your own throat?
You do not want to hear this but here it is: You have not done an
adequate job of seperating authentic spirituality from the
power-political structures of an historical religious organization.
Organized religions are, by and large, organized to suppress
spirituality, not make it open and free. Don't be a victim of this
kind of ruthless bull****.
If your spiritual conceptualizations do not bring you to a moment
by moment conscious union with the Ground of Being you are being
robbed by cheap politicians of the most valuable thing there is.
Meanwhile, Bishops of every church lay around drunk on their ***,
giggling at the sacrifices of the faithful while they do their fill of
little boys, dwarfs, and helpless nuns.

especially if they aren't very talkative, in only two hours? (I'm not complaining. Two hours with God is more than most people, I fear, have in an entire lifetime.) I really don't know what you mean by "spirituality without dogma" -- the moment two or more people try to compare their experiences of God and try to learn something from it you are going to get "dogma" -- "this is what God said or did this is what it means." What is helpful is that I have little trouble with asking questions about what those others have said and written and from time to time I am able to sense when God is trying to tell me when something is important or not. Spirituality I believe *must* have three components -- your present, direct experience of God, the experience of those in the past, and a community of supportive and informed but questioning people you can talk to who themselves are engaged in the same sort of journey. I suspect what you call "dogma" is a spirituality that only has the middle component (codified tradition) -- but spirituality *without* dogma is either just the first or the first and third -- and that's not good either! One of my favorite authors is the Islamic Sufi mystic Rumi. I loved Martin Buber's "Tales of the Hasidim" when I read it maybe 35 years ago. The "soul friend" I've written about is partially Native American and her spirituality was flavored by that tradition and we had an interesting conversation once finding the parallels between their notion of "gifts of medicine" and the Christian notion of "gifts of the spirit". (It turns out she had been given a form of the gift of discernment of spirits and later the gift of healing.) I have comfortably worshipped in fundamentalist evangelical, liberal protestant, and mainstream Roman Catholic churches. Every other Thursday evening I talk about God with an ever changing group of members of a prison half-way house: most are black Baptists (which is a novelty for me up here in the north.) One of my peer spiritual directors hasn't belonged to a church in years -- and yet she and I have no trouble sensing and at times even visibly seeing where God is at work in the life of the other. Is there any "one true religion" or "one path" to God? No. Are all equally valid? Also no. There may be quite a variety of "right" paths, but sadly there are probably even more "wrong" paths -- paths which at best come to a dead-end, but at worst do lead to destruction of oneself, or one's soul or of others. A friend told me a story the other day. It goes like this. God and the Devil were out taking a stroll. They came upon a universe filled with beautiful sparkling stars. God said this is so wondrous, I'll call it religion. The Devil spoke and said.... but it is so chaotic, let me organize it for you. I like it! Ted

Seeker

12-10-2003, 09:14 PM

In article <cb5b2d4e.0312091956.584d0262@posting.google.com>, Ralph
DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote:
Whoa. Full stop.

Whoa full stop yourself.

Has God audibly spoken to you?
Have you visibily seen God?
Have you been physically embraced by God?
Have you felt the Testimony of the Spirit?

Do you know what consolation with and without prior cause is?

Have you read Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, St. John of the
Cross, Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Merton and Rumi?

Have you read The Critical Journey or The Discerning Heart?

When you can say yes to most of those then I think you have a basis to
criticize my spiritual journey. Remember what C.S. Lewis had Aslan
say to one of his characters who was asking about the spiritual journey
of someone else -- "that's his story." Look to your own journey, sir,
unless you are prepared to demonstrate you have climbed the mountain
first.

Ted

geminii2

12-11-2003, 04:26 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<101220032314335502%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <cb5b2d4e.0312091956.584d0262@posting.google.com>, Ralph DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote: Whoa. Full stop. Whoa full stop yourself. Has God audibly spoken to you? Have you visibily seen God? Have you been physically embraced by God? Have you felt the Testimony of the Spirit?

If you are convinced that God is "audibly" speaking to you,
that He has physically embraced you and that you have actually seen
Him, then I think your problems are far too serious to be dealt with
in this newsgroup. Unless you are a present-day Joan of Arc or a
saint-in-waiting, I suspect that your admission of hearing voices
would quickly result in an admission to a pyschiatric facility for an
extensive evaluation. Does God's voice come through the radio, TV, or
does He just dial direct?
Do you know what consolation with and without prior cause is?

Who friggin cares? Does it make you in some way a better
person for society, does it save lives or make a difference to anyone
other than YOU? Have you read Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Merton and Rumi?

Good for you - you can read! What do you do to make your
wife happy, or anyone else, for that matter, you self-absorbed
schmuck?
Have you read The Critical Journey or The Discerning Heart? When you can say yes to most of those then I think you have a basis to criticize my spiritual journey.

It doesn't take much to easily criticize your spiritual
journey - one simply has to observe the results of your enlightened
path. You are still the same selfish whiner you were a few years
back. Your "journey" (reading material and all) has gotten you nowhere
as far as I can discern. Maybe you should focus more on where you
*are* than on where you are trying to go or which road to get there.
Find God in the moment and in everything.
It seems to me that it would be better for you to seek God
rather than believe He's been frantically trying to find you so that
He could speak specifically to you. I somehow doubt that God has a
desire to physically hug you or that He wants to reveal Himself to you
personally in a vision. You have these disturbing delusions which
smack of a man desparately in need of medication.

Remember what C.S. Lewis had Aslan say to one of his characters who was asking about the spiritual journey of someone else -- "that's his story." Look to your own journey, sir, unless you are prepared to demonstrate you have climbed the mountain first. Ted

Seeker

12-11-2003, 06:29 PM

In article <cb5b2d4e.0312111814.78ab2f87@posting.google.com>, Ralph
DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote:
My typing finger is tired.

You didn't answer my questions.

Ted

Seeker

12-11-2003, 06:34 PM

In article <a07b18e4.0312111626.721a25a0@posting.google.com>, geminii2
<geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You have these disturbing delusions which smack of a man desparately in need of medication.

What medication in particular?

(You are a trained psychiatrist able to diagnose such disorders, I
assume.)

Ted

shinypenny

12-12-2003, 11:07 AM

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<UzlCb.84$726.46@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>... Brilliant piece of writing. Have you read any of Richard Dawkins work? I've just gotten interested in what he has to say. http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/default.asp

Urf - add Origins of Virtue to your list. It is based on Dawkins'
work. Fascinating stuff.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140264450/102-2737715-6535311?v=glance

jen

shinypenny

12-12-2003, 11:22 AM

geminii2@sbcglobal.net (geminii2) wrote in message news:<a07b18e4.0312111626.721a25a0@posting.google.com>... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<101220032314335502%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <cb5b2d4e.0312091956.584d0262@posting.google.com>, Ralph DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote: Whoa. Full stop. Whoa full stop yourself. Has God audibly spoken to you? Have you visibily seen God? Have you been physically embraced by God? Have you felt the Testimony of the Spirit? If you are convinced that God is "audibly" speaking to you, that He has physically embraced you and that you have actually seen Him, then I think your problems are far too serious to be dealt with in this newsgroup. Unless you are a present-day Joan of Arc or a saint-in-waiting, I suspect that your admission of hearing voices would quickly result in an admission to a pyschiatric facility for an extensive evaluation. Does God's voice come through the radio, TV, or does He just dial direct?

Heh heh (nervous laugh)...

God has on occasion talked to me through the radio. I'd pray for a
sign and he'd play this particular song... on all five stations at
once. Really blew my mind when I once asked for a sign, and He played
"Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign...." that song by the Black Crows! I was
also seeing halos (auras?) around everyone, and convinced that certain
people where angels. 'Course, that's when I was dx'ed as manic and was
supposed to be taking lithium!

In Ted's defense, even if he was mentally ill and hearing God's voice,
that doesn't disprove anything. Perhaps something about mental illness
just makes it easier to turn into a different spiritual frequency?
Think about it. Lots of people fast, chant, go without sleep, etc, to
induce a similar transcendent experience. Who's to say it isn't God?

Do you know what consolation with and without prior cause is? Who friggin cares? Does it make you in some way a better person for society, does it save lives or make a difference to anyone other than YOU?

Good point.
Have you read Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Merton and Rumi? Good for you - you can read! What do you do to make your wife happy, or anyone else, for that matter, you self-absorbed schmuck?

I can understand your frustration with Ted, but let's all be nice.....
I do think you have a good point about all the reading, though. Not
that there's anything wrong with using one's power of analytics to
find God (heck, the old testament is basically a work-book for
training the mind on moral and ethical dilemmas), but it's also quite
useful to temper all that with a dose of feelings and intuition.

God *is* within our hearts. Apply that intuition, and you'll find Him.
You don't have to look far.

Have you read The Critical Journey or The Discerning Heart? When you can say yes to most of those then I think you have a basis to criticize my spiritual journey. It doesn't take much to easily criticize your spiritual journey - one simply has to observe the results of your enlightened path. You are still the same selfish whiner you were a few years back. Your "journey" (reading material and all) has gotten you nowhere as far as I can discern. Maybe you should focus more on where you *are* than on where you are trying to go or which road to get there. Find God in the moment and in everything.

Uh huh. Ted seems to look back a lot, and look forward. Meanwhile, he
seems to have a big blind spot towards what's happening right now.

It seems to me that it would be better for you to seek God rather than believe He's been frantically trying to find you so that He could speak specifically to you. I somehow doubt that God has a desire to physically hug you or that He wants to reveal Himself to you personally in a vision. You have these disturbing delusions which smack of a man desparately in need of medication.

Ouch. I can understand how you might get that impression about Ted,
but I'll stand up for him and say that I don't think Ted necessarily
thinks he's been singled out by God or that he's special or anything
like that. I believe he's just hoping for a bit of guidance, that's
all. Right, Ted?

jen

Seeker

12-12-2003, 07:04 PM

In article <c8cb5319.0312121122.31fed590@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can understand your frustration with Ted, but let's all be
nice.....I do think you have a good point about all the reading, though. Notthat there's anything wrong with using one's power of analytics tofind God (heck, the old testament is basically a work-book fortraining the mind on moral and ethical dilemmas), but it's also quiteuseful to temper all that with a dose of feelings and intuition.Uh huh. Ted seems to look back a lot, and look forward. Meanwhile, heseems to have a big blind spot towards what's happening right now.
Not really, Jen. I am very well aware of what is happening "right now"
and that awareness is not at all comforting. I admit that many days
it pains me enough I *would* like to ignore it -- my journalling has
been a bit sparse lately, partly, I think, because what I find myself
writing is both repetitious and upsetting. I try to look for the good
points; I try to see where I can be helpful and loving -- and then I
write down the bad stuff -- my faults just as much as those of others
-- and the balance doesn't come out very good. When you find yourself
screwing up three and four days in a row it can be pretty depressing.
Many days it is only the past (seeing where God has been in my life)
and the future (hope for change) that keep me going. What is here
right and now often does not.
It seems to me that it would be better for you to seek
God rather than believe He's been frantically trying to find you so
that He could speak specifically to you. I somehow doubt that God has a desire to physically hug you or that He wants to reveal Himself to
you personally in a vision. You have these disturbing delusions which smack of a man desparately in need of medication.
(I'll answer this one here rather than the original, to keep it all
together.)

It is not, for me, a question of belief, but of experience. I have
only two options -- either I *am* insane, or God is real, and can be
experienced with the ordinary senses, for I have been allowed to do so,
for reasons I don't understand much. No-one I have interacted with
professionally (which includes three licensed therapists, my primary
care physician, a number of clergy with degrees from academically
strong seminaries, as well as all my professional scientific,
mathematical, and engineering colleagues) or socially thinks I'm
insane, so that leaves only one possibility. (OK, I guess there is a
third one -- that this is all one big lie. I can't help you with
that.)
Ouch. I can understand how you might get that impression about Ted,but I'll stand up for him and say that I don't think Ted necessarilythinks he's been singled out by God or that he's special or anythinglike that. I believe he's just hoping for a bit of guidance, that'sall. Right, Ted?

Thanks Jen. I want to start this reply by apologizing for the tone
with which I replied to both Ralph and geminii2 -- as an excuse, I
really should remember *not* to try to engage in any serious exchanges
late at night when I'm tired and cranky.

Both Ralph and geminii2 strongly criticized me, from slightly different
directions. I don't know why, only they do. I do know that it upset
me and I did not react well to it. I guess I'm tired of having to
defend myself and I should learn just to ignore it, especially since I
seem not to be able to do a very good job of responding to it. I know
what my experience is and I can relate that experience to that of many
other people, both a handful I know personally very well and countless
others whose experience has been captured in the references I gave. I
do not like to generalize from my own experience but I do think it is
fair to generalize when that is rounded out by the experience of
others. I all ask is that you do the same -- share with us *your*
experience of God and that of others you can relate to.

I am not about to try to tell anyone how to go about finding God -- all
I know is what "worked" for me. I do know that it has also "worked"
for others, but I also know there are many for whom it hasn't.

Ted

geminii2

12-12-2003, 09:57 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<111220032034112451%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <a07b18e4.0312111626.721a25a0@posting.google.com>, geminii2 <geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote: You have these disturbing delusions which smack of a man desparately in need of medication. What medication in particular? (You are a trained psychiatrist able to diagnose such disorders, I assume.)

Ted
One does not need to be a trained psychiatrist to conclude that
you have some serious problems. If you think it is normal to hear God
speaking out loud to you personally then I can only hope you find
help.

shinypenny

12-13-2003, 06:56 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<121220032103428955%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <c8cb5319.0312121122.31fed590@posting.google.com>, shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:I can understand your frustration with Ted, but let's all be nice.....I do think you have a good point about all the reading, though. Notthat there's anything wrong with using one's power of analytics tofind God (heck, the old testament is basically a work-book fortraining the mind on moral and ethical dilemmas), but it's also quiteuseful to temper all that with a dose of feelings and intuition.Uh huh. Ted seems to look back a lot, and look forward. Meanwhile, heseems to have a big blind spot towards what's happening right now. Not really, Jen. I am very well aware of what is happening "right now" and that awareness is not at all comforting. I admit that many days it pains me enough I *would* like to ignore it -- my journalling has been a bit sparse lately, partly, I think, because what I find myself writing is both repetitious and upsetting. I try to look for the good points; I try to see where I can be helpful and loving -- and then I write down the bad stuff -- my faults just as much as those of others -- and the balance doesn't come out very good. When you find yourself screwing up three and four days in a row it can be pretty depressing. Many days it is only the past (seeing where God has been in my life) and the future (hope for change) that keep me going. What is here right and now often does not.

I think when we suggest you should concentrate on the moment, we don't
necessarily mean spending all this time dwelling on your personal
inner thoughts. I am a lot like you, Ted. I've been learning these
last few years to look outside myself and fill my senses with what's
going on in the moment. For example, when I'm commuting and I find
myself obsessing over my personal problems, I force myself to stop and
look around myself. I will notice little things like the way the light
hits the trees. The way the line in the road comes rushing towards me.
The sound of the air whistling past my car. The smile on the toll
booth collector's face. The heat coming from the dash board. The dust
on the dashboard. Try it sometime. Such meditation practices are
another tried & true way to reach transcendence.

(I'll answer this one here rather than the original, to keep it all together.) It is not, for me, a question of belief, but of experience. I have only two options -- either I *am* insane, or God is real, and can be experienced with the ordinary senses, for I have been allowed to do so, for reasons I don't understand much. No-one I have interacted with professionally (which includes three licensed therapists, my primary care physician, a number of clergy with degrees from academically strong seminaries, as well as all my professional scientific, mathematical, and engineering colleagues) or socially thinks I'm insane, so that leaves only one possibility. (OK, I guess there is a third one -- that this is all one big lie. I can't help you with that.)

Heh. Well, I had the opposite situation. I did have several
psychiatrists tell me I was mentally ill, having delusions, and needed
medication. It confused me because it all felt so real..... and also
so wonderful. I thought they were the ones who were nuts, and they
were simply not privileged enough to be singled out as I had been!

The medication did "cure" me. For a long time afterwards, I was very
upset and disappointed that I had been allowed to see something most
people don't get to see, and now it was taken away from me just like
that. I didn't know how to make sense of that and had long angry
debates with God, who was awfully silent about the whole thing. Yes, I
even tried every now and then to deliberately induce the manic
experience.

Nowadays I do see God all around, but it is different, not so
dramatic, and I have to work harder to find Him. Maybe that was His
whole objective, maybe he dangled this tantalizing peak of Him so that
I'd *want* to work hard finding where he was hiding during my normal
times.

I see him most when I am concentrating and focusing on the moment, and
not letting myself get mired in my own inner dialog, which drowns Him
out. When you are manic, all your senses are heightened to a fever
pitch. You cannot help but live in the moment, which bombards you from
all angles... sights, smells, sounds, even other people's thoughts and
emotions. Yes, at the same time you've also got this inner dialog
going on at rapid pace, but the external stimuli is just so strong it
drowns it out.

The trouble is, it isn't a simple matter for me to choose to live in a
manic state all the time. I can't walk around manic all the time,
because while it does have some unique benefits, my mind and body
can't take all the side effects.... the lack of sleep, weight loss,
inability to concentrate, etc. It was as if God decided to come live
in my brain for a few months, only my brain wasn't large enough to
accomodate him for too long without bursting!

Thanks Jen. I want to start this reply by apologizing for the tone with which I replied to both Ralph and geminii2 -- as an excuse, I really should remember *not* to try to engage in any serious exchanges late at night when I'm tired and cranky. Both Ralph and geminii2 strongly criticized me, from slightly different directions. I don't know why, only they do. I do know that it upset me and I did not react well to it. I guess I'm tired of having to defend myself and I should learn just to ignore it, especially since I seem not to be able to do a very good job of responding to it. I know what my experience is and I can relate that experience to that of many other people, both a handful I know personally very well and countless others whose experience has been captured in the references I gave. I do not like to generalize from my own experience but I do think it is fair to generalize when that is rounded out by the experience of others. I all ask is that you do the same -- share with us *your* experience of God and that of others you can relate to. I am not about to try to tell anyone how to go about finding God -- all I know is what "worked" for me. I do know that it has also "worked" for others, but I also know there are many for whom it hasn't.

But, it's not working "now." I think that's our point. There are more
ways to find God, and not just a flash of him every now and then, but
awareness of His constant presence not just in you, but in everyone
and all around. Why not attempt a different approach since the other
is no longer working?

jen

Ralph DuBose

12-13-2003, 10:07 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<121220032103428955%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <c8cb5319.0312121122.31fed590@posting.google.com>, shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:I can understand your frustration with Ted, but let's all be nice.....I do think you have a good point about all the reading, though. Notthat there's anything wrong with using one's power of analytics tofind God (heck, the old testament is basically a work-book fortraining the mind on moral and ethical dilemmas), but it's also quiteuseful to temper all that with a dose of feelings and intuition.Uh huh. Ted seems to look back a lot, and look forward. Meanwhile, heseems to have a big blind spot towards what's happening right now. Not really, Jen. I am very well aware of what is happening "right now" and that awareness is not at all comforting. I admit that many days it pains me enough I *would* like to ignore it -- my journalling has been a bit sparse lately, partly, I think, because what I find myself writing is both repetitious and upsetting. I try to look for the good points; I try to see where I can be helpful and loving -- and then I write down the bad stuff -- my faults just as much as those of others -- and the balance doesn't come out very good. When you find yourself screwing up three and four days in a row it can be pretty depressing. Many days it is only the past (seeing where God has been in my life) and the future (hope for change) that keep me going. What is here right and now often does not. It seems to me that it would be better for you to seek God rather than believe He's been frantically trying to find you so that He could speak specifically to you. I somehow doubt that God has a desire to physically hug you or that He wants to reveal Himself to you personally in a vision. You have these disturbing delusions which smack of a man desparately in need of medication. (I'll answer this one here rather than the original, to keep it all together.) It is not, for me, a question of belief, but of experience. I have only two options -- either I *am* insane, or God is real, and can be experienced with the ordinary senses,

Actually, there are several other options. The first one that
comes to mind is that your definition of "God" is misguided. In which
case your whole question becomes completely meaningless.
Alert minds will notice that you have framed this dichotomy
(Either I am crazy or God is real) in the same words as have been used
in Christian apologetics in regard to Jesus of Nazareth. (Either he
was telling the truth or he was a madman). This is a major hint, I
think, as to why you definitely rub some of us the wrong way. There is
a lot of self-aggrandizement in your religious "journey". You
self-told story reeks of "I am so special".
In reply to that, I tried to explain that by embracing this kind
of Yahweh-Prophet relationship you have taken a turn down a blind
alley. You have been more or less bragging about a religious
experience that to me looks stunted and irrelevant.
I did not answer your question about what I read. I have my
reasons for taking that posture. But you did not answer my question,
which was about what fills your life at those moments when your senses
are not throbbing from delight at the Presence of the Divine. I think
my question is more important than yours. It points towards the
emptiness that is the result of Yahweh worship. That is a real issue.
What I might claim to have read is not.

for I have been allowed to do so, for reasons I don't understand much. No-one I have interacted with professionally (which includes three licensed therapists, my primary care physician, a number of clergy with degrees from academically strong seminaries, as well as all my professional scientific, mathematical, and engineering colleagues) or socially thinks I'm insane, so that leaves only one possibility. (OK, I guess there is a third one -- that this is all one big lie. I can't help you with that.)Ouch. I can understand how you might get that impression about Ted,but I'll stand up for him and say that I don't think Ted necessarilythinks he's been singled out by God or that he's special or anythinglike that. I believe he's just hoping for a bit of guidance, that'sall. Right, Ted? Thanks Jen. I want to start this reply by apologizing for the tone with which I replied to both Ralph and geminii2 -- as an excuse, I really should remember *not* to try to engage in any serious exchanges late at night when I'm tired and cranky. Both Ralph and geminii2 strongly criticized me, from slightly different directions. I don't know why, only they do. I do know that it upset me and I did not react well to it. I guess I'm tired of having to defend myself and I should learn just to ignore it, especially since I seem not to be able to do a very good job of responding to it. I know what my experience is and I can relate that experience to that of many other people, both a handful I know personally very well and countless others whose experience has been captured in the references I gave. I do not like to generalize from my own experience but I do think it is fair to generalize when that is rounded out by the experience of others. I all ask is that you do the same -- share with us *your* experience of God and that of others you can relate to. I am not about to try to tell anyone how to go about finding God -- all I know is what "worked" for me. I do know that it has also "worked" for others, but I also know there are many for whom it hasn't. Ted

Doug Anderson

12-13-2003, 10:19 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
It is not, for me, a question of belief, but of experience. I have only two options -- either I *am* insane, or God is real, and can be experienced with the ordinary senses,

You know, Ted, you've said this before. I rarely buy such stark
alternatives. If those are the _only_ possibilities you can conceive
of, then it marks a failure of your imagination. There are other
possibilities besides the two you note.

In fact, the two you note presuppose that your brain functions as a
perfect instrument, which involves a fair amount of hubris on your
part. People who are not insane can either make mistakes, or have
delusions (or both). Furthermore, god can exist, but you may still be
mistaken about your proof of this fact.

Doug (not that I've _totally_ ruled out your insanity option!)

geminii2

12-13-2003, 03:56 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<121220032103428955%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <c8cb5319.0312121122.31fed590@posting.google.com>, shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip>
> It seems to me that it would be better for you to seek God rather than believe He's been frantically trying to find you so that He could speak specifically to you. I somehow doubt that God has a desire to physically hug you or that He wants to reveal Himself to you personally in a vision. You have these disturbing delusions which smack of a man desparately in need of medication. (I'll answer this one here rather than the original, to keep it all together.) It is not, for me, a question of belief, but of experience. I have only two options -- either I *am* insane, or God is real, and can be experienced with the ordinary senses, for I have been allowed to do so, for reasons I don't understand much. No-one I have interacted with professionally (which includes three licensed therapists, my primary care physician, a number of clergy with degrees from academically strong seminaries, as well as all my professional scientific, mathematical, and engineering colleagues) or socially thinks I'm insane, so that leaves only one possibility. (OK, I guess there is a third one -- that this is all one big lie. I can't help you with that.)

Ted

The presence of delusions does not necessarily mean you are
"insane". Regardless, your belief that there could be only 2 options
continues in the same vein as many of your previous statements. I
realize I have been harsh, but sometimes it is the best vehicle for
catching someone's attention, and I really do thing you have a
distorted sense of reality and of your own importance. I am not
saying you are insignificant, I am merely suggesting that you are no
better than the rest of us.

My message to you is that not everything is "about "you.
Everything that happens around you, people's words or actions, the
changing of the seasons...all of these transpire without regard to
you. Most events happen because other people are thinking about
themselves and not about how their actions will impact you. In the
greater scheme, nobody even thinks about you! And you are not unique
in this absence of regard...the vast majority of the population is not
worried about how they affect others in the routine and ordinary
things they do...they just do them because that is what they want to
do. Whenever you start thinking something is "happening" to you, tell
yourself, "It's not ABOUT me" - perhaps it will ground you and help
you to feel less special (or alternately, less of a victim).

Ouch. I can understand how you might get that impression about Ted,but I'll stand up for him and say that I don't think Ted necessarilythinks he's been singled out by God or that he's special or anythinglike that. I believe he's just hoping for a bit of guidance, that'sall. Right, Ted? Thanks Jen. I want to start this reply by apologizing for the tone with which I replied to both Ralph and geminii2 -- as an excuse, I really should remember *not* to try to engage in any serious exchanges late at night when I'm tired and cranky. Both Ralph and geminii2 strongly criticized me, from slightly different directions. I don't know why, only they do. I do know that it upset me and I did not react well to it. <snip>

No apology necessary. My intent was not to upset you, but I
could also not let you make such statements without responding to them
strongly.

I guess I'm tired of having to defend myself and I should learn just to ignore it, especially since I seem not to be able to do a very good job of responding to it. I know what my experience is and I can relate that experience to that of many other people, both a handful I know personally very well and countless others whose experience has been captured in the references I gave. I do not like to generalize from my own experience but I do think it is fair to generalize when that is rounded out by the experience of others. I all ask is that you do the same -- share with us *your* experience of God and that of others you can relate to.

I have always been of the opinion that my relationship and my
experience of God or Creation is personal and private. You worship
your way and I'll worship mine...just don't expect me to believe or
even be particularly interested in your experience. It's yours, no
need to share. I also do not think you should expect me to believe
that your method of worship has helped you in your marriage or in your
personal life because it is apparent that it has not.
I am not about to try to tell anyone how to go about finding God -- all I know is what "worked" for me. I do know that it has also "worked" for others, but I also know there are many for whom it hasn't.

In what way has it "worked"? You are unhappy and are still
"seeking". This is not an inducement to try your "way". Ted

shinypenny

12-13-2003, 04:14 PM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<CKICb.339333$Dw6.1122371@attbi_s02>... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: It is not, for me, a question of belief, but of experience. I have only two options -- either I *am* insane, or God is real, and can be experienced with the ordinary senses, You know, Ted, you've said this before. I rarely buy such stark alternatives. If those are the _only_ possibilities you can conceive of, then it marks a failure of your imagination. There are other possibilities besides the two you note. In fact, the two you note presuppose that your brain functions as a perfect instrument, which involves a fair amount of hubris on your part. People who are not insane can either make mistakes, or have delusions (or both). Furthermore, god can exist, but you may still be mistaken about your proof of this fact.

Or grossly mistaken about your interpretation of what that fact
actually means when applied to your life. Consider:

- God and hubris don't go together all that well; Jesus, for example,
was pretty damn modest;

- If God is truly with you, then why would you be continuing to sin in
your heart and thoughts towards your wife every day?

What I can't fathom is a God-vision that didn't make it blindingly
clear that God is within all of us (yes, even those who sin against us
and even those who don't believe). The experience is quite humbling.
Once you see that, it is awfully hard to sin against others -- on a
daily basis -- because you realize by doing so you're sinning directly
against God. It's like giving him the bird or something!

Every time you speak or think ill about your wife, you're slamming
God.

What do you do with a gift you receive from someone who means well,
but it's just not something you like or want? Think about it. Let's
say a dear aunt that you love gives you an ugly vase. Do you display
it in your house in a place of honor anyway, and then allow yourself
to think terrible nasty thoughts every time you look at it? It isn't
the vase's fault it sits in your house. Maybe you try to accidentally
break it, so you can be "off the hook." If that doesn't work,
eventually you might start to hate the giver. No, you are not on a
good path right now!!

As Doug says, there are numerous possibilities here.

jen

Seeker

12-14-2003, 06:29 PM

In article <c8cb5319.0312131614.262f4f1d@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Every time you speak or think ill about your wife, you're slamming God.

Jen, I'm going to respond to you by telling you of a brief interchange
my wife and I had this afternoon.

I think I've mentioned that she insists on keeping a precise account of
where our money is spent, down to the penny. Every couple of weeks I
need to count how much cash I have and if it doesn't match what the
records say i'm supposed to have, we have to try to reconstruct what I
must have missed recording. When I've grumbled, she says, "I'm only
trying to keep an accurate budget so we know how to plan."

This afternoon I was $5 short.
She flat out said "Have you been drinking again? I can't trust you,
can I." Sheesh, it's been over seven years!
We've gone through about $50 in $5 bills in the last couple of days
(six of them brand new) for various donations and presents. I only
dispersed $15 of them. I haven't the foggiest idea what happened to
the 5$ -- my guess is that two of the new $5's stuck together; I have
no idea which one of us is responsible.

I think I should be allowed a forum or two to vent in without being
accused by you of sinful behavior. Yes, I am required to love my wife.
How I can best express that is, I think, not your call. In any case,
I don't have to like her at all times and all places and under all
situations.

Ted

Seeker

12-14-2003, 09:13 PM

In article <CKICb.339333$Dw6.1122371@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
People who are not insane can either make mistakes, or have delusions (or both).

Isn't "delusion" just a polite term for "insane?" I am not talking
about looking at a rain-stained window and seeing what one thinks is a
picture of the Virgin Mary. I am not even talking about a daydream --
letting one's mind wander and visualizing something. I am actually a
very poor visualizer -- I have a lousy pictorial memory. I have tried
to meditate, for instance, by trying to visualize a scene, many times,
and only once did something come of it. I can't convince you of what I
have seen, heard, and felt so I'm not even going to try. With only
three exceptions all the "significant" times God "showed up" for me
were ones when I was doing perfectly ordinary things -- taking a walk
around the place I work during the lunch hour, strolling my son's new
neighborhood with him and my wife, sitting in a staff meeting, or
fixing pancakes for supper.

Furthermore, god can exist, but you may still be mistaken about your proof of this fact.

I will grant the possiblity that I am being misled by some elaborately
planned supernatural hoax -- one so elaborate that whatever
supernatural force is behind it has been able to take in an awful lot
of other people for thousands of years. You are right -- there is no
way of telling. But this I do know -- either I am insane (and, as I
have said, so are quite a few others who have experienced similar
things) or I have experienced something outside the material world. I
am compelled to interpret all that as God's doing and not anything
else.

I think I've posted this story before, but it fits here. When my
siblings and I were pretty young -- probably pre-teen -- my sister
asked my father, "Daddy, what would you do if you saw a ghost?" His
answer, an answer I didn't understand then, was "I'd be overjoyed." I
now understand that answer. Once you have experienced, without a
shadow of a doubt, *any* spiritual reality you have passed the major
hurdle to faith -- from 2nd hand to 1st hand. There is no turning
back.

Ted

Seeker

12-14-2003, 09:15 PM

In article <a07b18e4.0312131556.4f2d28c9@posting.google.com>, geminii2
<geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
No apology necessary. My intent was not to upset you, but I could also not let you make such statements without responding to them strongly.

Why? Do they upset *you*?

Ted

Seeker

12-14-2003, 09:21 PM

In article <a07b18e4.0312122157.7652820d@posting.google.com>, geminii2
<geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
If you think it is normal to hear God speaking out loud to you personally then I can only hope you find help.

Normal, as in happens a lot to a lot of people? Of course I don't
think that.

The question is -- does it *ever* happen?
If so, then how do you judge someone's claim it has happened to them?

Ted

Doug Anderson

12-14-2003, 11:43 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <CKICb.339333$Dw6.1122371@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: People who are not insane can either make mistakes, or have delusions (or both). Isn't "delusion" just a polite term for "insane?"

No. And neither is "being mistaken." It's funny. I don't take you
for one of these either/or people where things have to be all one
extreme or the other.

But by polarizing the possibilities to "I'm insane" or "god exists"
you exceptionalize yourself. Do you really think it is impossible to
be simultaneously certain, mistaken, and sane?

Making an error or having a delusion is _not_ equivalent to being
insane. But believing that the only possibilities is that one
apprehends the world perfectly, or is completely mad does border on
the insane.

shinypenny

12-15-2003, 08:09 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<141220032029478102%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <c8cb5319.0312131614.262f4f1d@posting.google.com>, shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: Every time you speak or think ill about your wife, you're slamming God. Jen, I'm going to respond to you by telling you of a brief interchange my wife and I had this afternoon. I think I've mentioned that she insists on keeping a precise account of where our money is spent, down to the penny. Every couple of weeks I need to count how much cash I have and if it doesn't match what the records say i'm supposed to have, we have to try to reconstruct what I must have missed recording. When I've grumbled, she says, "I'm only trying to keep an accurate budget so we know how to plan." This afternoon I was $5 short. She flat out said "Have you been drinking again? I can't trust you, can I." Sheesh, it's been over seven years! We've gone through about $50 in $5 bills in the last couple of days (six of them brand new) for various donations and presents. I only dispersed $15 of them. I haven't the foggiest idea what happened to the 5$ -- my guess is that two of the new $5's stuck together; I have no idea which one of us is responsible.

Instead of venting, complaining, getting defensive and harboring ill
feelings towards your wife, why don't you try to look at her behavior
in a different light? Why don't you seek to try and understand her?
*Especially* if you have no intention of leaving the marriage!

Seems to me this exchange may hold some important clues about your
wife. Perhaps it has little to do with money. Sounds to me she doesn't
feel she can trust you. Perhaps if you addressed her lack of trust in
general, she'd quit complaining about the money issues?

What goads me about your situation is it seems you believe it's not
within your control any longer. It's either in your wife's hands (she
has to change) or within God's. So you wait and do nothing, while
sitting around and complaining about her. But if I'm right and your
wife has a general distrust of you, then there you go, there is
something that *is* within your ability to control.
I think I should be allowed a forum or two to vent in without being accused by you of sinful behavior. Yes, I am required to love my wife. How I can best express that is, I think, not your call. In any case, I don't have to like her at all times and all places and under all situations.

But Ted, it's the *way* you complain that seems quite uncharitable to
me.
jen

Ralph DuBose

12-15-2003, 12:06 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<141220032313158012%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <CKICb.339333$Dw6.1122371@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: People who are not insane can either make mistakes, or have delusions (or both). Isn't "delusion" just a polite term for "insane?" I am not talking about looking at a rain-stained window and seeing what one thinks is a picture of the Virgin Mary. I am not even talking about a daydream -- letting one's mind wander and visualizing something. I am actually a very poor visualizer -- I have a lousy pictorial memory. I have tried to meditate, for instance, by trying to visualize a scene, many times, and only once did something come of it. I can't convince you of what I have seen, heard, and felt so I'm not even going to try. With only three exceptions all the "significant" times God "showed up" for me were ones when I was doing perfectly ordinary things -- taking a walk around the place I work during the lunch hour, strolling my son's new neighborhood with him and my wife, sitting in a staff meeting, or fixing pancakes for supper. Furthermore, god can exist, but you may still be mistaken about your proof of this fact. I will grant the possiblity that I am being misled by some elaborately planned supernatural hoax -- one so elaborate that whatever supernatural force is behind it has been able to take in an awful lot of other people for thousands of years. You are right -- there is no way of telling. But this I do know -- either I am insane (and, as I have said, so are quite a few others who have experienced similar things) or I have experienced something outside the material world. I am compelled to interpret all that as God's doing and not anything else.

Earlier you mentioned St.John of the Cross as someone whose views
are to be taken seriously. It has been a while but I remember clearly
enough that his main point about the experience of God was that such
such experience, to be of any true value, was not thru the senses. He
spoke of a sort of con-joining of personalities, a mystic communion,
not a subject-object relationship. Instead, it can only be
subject-subject in which our will and intention is subsumed by the
divine person. That is, God experiences the world thru us.
This is not what one gets from sight, sound, smell, etc. Maybe you
see it differently.
St. Francis of Assisi simply advised his followers to respond to a
vision or any sort of epiphany with a simple prayer, "Lord, I am not
worthy" and to keep busy with the plain, obvious, joyously holy
life&work that was right in front of them.
If you earn all of the money and your wife demands an accounting of
every penny... I really do not know what to say to that. It is a
situation well off of the edge of my radar screen. I would be making
wild guesses about a category of human behavior at the far extremes of
possibilty.

I think I've posted this story before, but it fits here. When my siblings and I were pretty young -- probably pre-teen -- my sister asked my father, "Daddy, what would you do if you saw a ghost?" His answer, an answer I didn't understand then, was "I'd be overjoyed." I now understand that answer. Once you have experienced, without a shadow of a doubt, *any* spiritual reality you have passed the major hurdle to faith -- from 2nd hand to 1st hand. There is no turning back. Ted

Seeker

12-15-2003, 09:03 PM

In article <c8cb5319.0312150809.54b8d613@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Instead of venting, complaining, getting defensive and harboring ill feelings towards your wife, why don't you try to look at her behavior in a different light? Why don't you seek to try and understand her? *Especially* if you have no intention of leaving the marriage!
What do you think one of my main reasons for sticking with the joint
therapy is? (Our last session, for instance, was 90% spent on her --
not me or us -- and yet we've just begun to scratch the surface, I
think.) But I understand her, sometimes, all too well -- she doesn't
want to live in the real world. She distrusts all men except her
relatives, because we "are different." I'm just now beginning to
understand what affect being brought up essentially alone by a
Victorian, bitter, impoverished divorced mother and two much older
siblings really had to have had on her. But what good does
understanding do? It doesn't help heal her unacknowledged pain one
bit.
Seems to me this exchange may hold some important clues about your wife. Perhaps it has little to do with money. Sounds to me she doesn't feel she can trust you. Perhaps if you addressed her lack of trust in general, she'd quit complaining about the money issues?

Interestingly, I understand the money issues (as best one can
understand deep-seated fears) fairly well. What I don't understand at
all is her accusing me of having taken the money to buy liquor (rather
than accepting that one or the other of us was careless). That is
far, far deeper than not trusting me "in general" -- it's a very
specific area (and thoroughly irrational -- how much booze can $5
buy?!) You have (with reason) accused me of not having sufficient
faith in God -- in essence, her remark about that says she doesn't
either -- that she's rejecting everything she's seen and heard about my
spiritual growth and has been misleading me, or lying to me, when she's
said otherwise. In the past seven years since I sobered up I've given
no indication of wanting to drink or of abandoning my program of
recovery (I can count on two hands the number of AA meetings I've
missed -- and all because of family or church conflicts.) I see my
spiritual director once a month and meet with another spiritual advisor
two or three times a year -- doesn't any of that count?

I agree that we need to work on trust and I intend to bring that up
again and explore what I can do. She says what I need to do is tell
her everything -- but whenever anything comes out the reaction is so
strong I don't see how we can go through with it. The trust has to go
two ways -- she needs to trust I'm not going to lie to her, I need to
trust she is not going to hurt me when she hears what I have to say.
Unfortunately, she also wants to trust that I'm going to meet her
expectations and I can't promise that. She says that I lost her
trust when I told her I was unhappy with our marriage -- that I hid my
unhappiness from her and lied about why I was going into therapy.
Deep down, I don't think that's the case -- given how strongly she
reacts when I tell her painful things, no matter what she says I think
the trust was lost by my not continuing to protect her from reality. I
stopped being the invincible dragon-killling knight she wanted and
turned out to be an ordinary schmuck.

Ted

Seeker

12-15-2003, 09:15 PM

In article <NCdDb.54018$8y1.220826@attbi_s52>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Making an error or having a delusion is _not_ equivalent to being insane. But believing that the only possibilities is that one apprehends the world perfectly, or is completely mad does border on the insane.

I'm not speaking in generalities Doug. I'm not talking about how I
generally apprehend the world -- which is far from perfect I am
talking about a handful of *my* specific experiences (and analogous
ones of a handful of people I know personally.) It is not a matter of
being mistaken or misled by a trick of lighting or the wind through the
trees or seeing a pattern in a sequence of events that is actually only
a coincidence. It isn't even a matter of having a thought come to your
mind and attributing that to God rather than yourself. (And it isn't
even a case of being in a drug- or self-induced state of temporary
insanity.) No, either I have experienced on more than one occasion a
spiritual reality or I am insane. Sane people do *not* see, touch, or
hear things that aren't there.

Ted

Doug Anderson

12-15-2003, 09:27 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <NCdDb.54018$8y1.220826@attbi_s52>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Making an error or having a delusion is _not_ equivalent to being insane. But believing that the only possibilities is that one apprehends the world perfectly, or is completely mad does border on the insane. I'm not speaking in generalities Doug. I'm not talking about how I generally apprehend the world -- which is far from perfect I am talking about a handful of *my* specific experiences (and analogous ones of a handful of people I know personally.) It is not a matter of being mistaken or misled by a trick of lighting or the wind through the trees or seeing a pattern in a sequence of events that is actually only a coincidence. It isn't even a matter of having a thought come to your mind and attributing that to God rather than yourself. (And it isn't even a case of being in a drug- or self-induced state of temporary insanity.) No, either I have experienced on more than one occasion a spiritual reality or I am insane. Sane people do *not* see, touch, or hear things that aren't there.

But many sane ones _do_.

But what does it say to you that your spiritual beliefs are so
important to you, and yet the only way you can get yourself to believe
in them is by postulating that the _only_ alternative is your own
insanity?

There is something that seems dogmatically close-minded about such an
approach. Why can't it be the case that things have happened to you
that make belief in god the most attractive explanation, without all
the melodrama?

geminii2

12-15-2003, 09:51 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<141220032315356402%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <a07b18e4.0312131556.4f2d28c9@posting.google.com>, geminii2 <geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote: No apology necessary. My intent was not to upset you, but I could also not let you make such statements without responding to them strongly. Why? Do they upset *you*? Ted

Have you ever had someone within hearing distance say
something that seems in all aspects to be totally ludicrous, without
merit or validity? Sure, you could ignore it on the grounds that it
doesn't impact your life, but if it didn't take too much effort on
your part, you might be inclined to respond. That's how I felt. I
could't be upset because I don't have the problem...and I sure as hell
am not going to get upset about the problems or beliefs of someone I
do not know personally. But since you made statements that begged for
a response, I stated my viewpoint. Your words were annoying, but
hardly upsetting.

shinypenny

12-16-2003, 07:06 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<151220032303071939%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <c8cb5319.0312150809.54b8d613@posting.google.com>, shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: Instead of venting, complaining, getting defensive and harboring ill feelings towards your wife, why don't you try to look at her behavior in a different light? Why don't you seek to try and understand her? *Especially* if you have no intention of leaving the marriage! What do you think one of my main reasons for sticking with the joint therapy is? (Our last session, for instance, was 90% spent on her -- not me or us -- and yet we've just begun to scratch the surface, I think.) But I understand her, sometimes, all too well -- she doesn't want to live in the real world. She distrusts all men except her relatives, because we "are different." I'm just now beginning to understand what affect being brought up essentially alone by a Victorian, bitter, impoverished divorced mother and two much older siblings really had to have had on her. But what good does understanding do? It doesn't help heal her unacknowledged pain one bit.

Maybe it doesn't help you change her the way you want her to change.
But does it help you forgive her?

Seems to me this exchange may hold some important clues about your wife. Perhaps it has little to do with money. Sounds to me she doesn't feel she can trust you. Perhaps if you addressed her lack of trust in general, she'd quit complaining about the money issues? Interestingly, I understand the money issues (as best one can understand deep-seated fears) fairly well. What I don't understand at all is her accusing me of having taken the money to buy liquor (rather than accepting that one or the other of us was careless). That is far, far deeper than not trusting me "in general" -- it's a very specific area (and thoroughly irrational -- how much booze can $5 buy?!)

Yes, I picked up on that, too. That's why I thought something else
must be going on here.
You have (with reason) accused me of not having sufficient faith in God -- in essence, her remark about that says she doesn't either -- that she's rejecting everything she's seen and heard about my spiritual growth and has been misleading me, or lying to me, when she's said otherwise.

Perhaps she was fishing for reassurance that she can still trust you
and your entire relationship has not been built on lies? She has a lot
invested in your truthfulness. You recently rocked it with your
admission you were unhappy. Seems understandable to me she's now
worrying what *else* you've been hiding from her. You might want to
give her some slack if she's particularly jumpy right now.
In the past seven years since I sobered up I've given no indication of wanting to drink or of abandoning my program of recovery (I can count on two hands the number of AA meetings I've missed -- and all because of family or church conflicts.) I see my spiritual director once a month and meet with another spiritual advisor two or three times a year -- doesn't any of that count?

Did you gently remind her of all this?
I agree that we need to work on trust and I intend to bring that up again and explore what I can do. She says what I need to do is tell her everything -- but whenever anything comes out the reaction is so strong I don't see how we can go through with it. The trust has to go two ways -- she needs to trust I'm not going to lie to her, I need to trust she is not going to hurt me when she hears what I have to say.

How would she hurt you? I thought you were concerned with hurting her.
Please extrapolate on this if you don't mind.
Unfortunately, she also wants to trust that I'm going to meet her expectations and I can't promise that.

No, you can't.
She says that I lost her trust when I told her I was unhappy with our marriage -- that I hid my unhappiness from her and lied about why I was going into therapy. Deep down, I don't think that's the case -- given how strongly she reacts when I tell her painful things, no matter what she says I think the trust was lost by my not continuing to protect her from reality. I stopped being the invincible dragon-killling knight she wanted and turned out to be an ordinary schmuck.

:-(

Sounds like you need her reassurance, too.

Have you shared all this with her? If not, I think you should. I think
you should take her hands in yours, and bare your own fears to her.

Trust really is scary.

jen

Emma Anne

12-16-2003, 10:27 AM

shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
For example, when I'm commuting and I find myself obsessing over my personal problems, I force myself to stop and look around myself. I will notice little things like the way the light hits the trees. The way the line in the road comes rushing towards me. The sound of the air whistling past my car. The smile on the toll booth collector's face. The heat coming from the dash board. The dust on the dashboard. Try it sometime. Such meditation practices are another tried & true way to reach transcendence.

I am doing this too. I say to myself "Be here Now."

Emma Anne

12-16-2003, 10:27 AM

geminii2 <geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
If you are convinced that God is "audibly" speaking to you, that He has physically embraced you and that you have actually seen Him, then I think your problems are far too serious to be dealt with in this newsgroup.

God spoke to me once, or so I thought. He said the opposite of what he
seems to say to Ted though. He told me I was living my life wrong and I
needed to figure out who I am and be that person, instead of creating a
mental model of a good person and forcing myself to conform. I think
God should go tell Ted that, actually. . .

urf

12-16-2003, 02:18 PM

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1g624lj.1cq7la41m9gt1jN%mbjq@earthlink.net... shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: For example, when I'm commuting and I find myself obsessing over my personal problems, I force myself to stop and look around myself. I will notice little things like the way the light hits the trees. The way the line in the road comes rushing towards me. The sound of the air whistling past my car. The smile on the toll booth collector's face. The heat coming from the dash board. The dust on the dashboard. Try it sometime. Such meditation practices are another tried & true way to reach transcendence. I am doing this too. I say to myself "Be here Now."

from the book of the same name. BTW he's "Still Here" Now.

geminii2

12-16-2003, 02:33 PM

rdubose@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose) wrote in message news:<cb5b2d4e.0312151206.3f7b43bd@posting.google.com>... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<141220032313158012%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <CKICb.339333$Dw6.1122371@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: People who are not insane can either make mistakes, or have delusions (or both). Isn't "delusion" just a polite term for "insane?" I am not talking about looking at a rain-stained window and seeing what one thinks is a picture of the Virgin Mary. I am not even talking about a daydream -- letting one's mind wander and visualizing something. I am actually a very poor visualizer -- I have a lousy pictorial memory. I have tried to meditate, for instance, by trying to visualize a scene, many times, and only once did something come of it. I can't convince you of what I have seen, heard, and felt so I'm not even going to try. With only three exceptions all the "significant" times God "showed up" for me were ones when I was doing perfectly ordinary things -- taking a walk around the place I work during the lunch hour, strolling my son's new neighborhood with him and my wife, sitting in a staff meeting, or fixing pancakes for supper. Furthermore, god can exist, but you may still be mistaken about your proof of this fact. I will grant the possiblity that I am being misled by some elaborately planned supernatural hoax -- one so elaborate that whatever supernatural force is behind it has been able to take in an awful lot of other people for thousands of years. You are right -- there is no way of telling. But this I do know -- either I am insane (and, as I have said, so are quite a few others who have experienced similar things) or I have experienced something outside the material world. I am compelled to interpret all that as God's doing and not anything else. Earlier you mentioned St.John of the Cross as someone whose views are to be taken seriously. It has been a while but I remember clearly enough that his main point about the experience of God was that such such experience, to be of any true value, was not thru the senses. He spoke of a sort of con-joining of personalities, a mystic communion, not a subject-object relationship. Instead, it can only be subject-subject in which our will and intention is subsumed by the divine person. That is, God experiences the world thru us. This is not what one gets from sight, sound, smell, etc. Maybe you see it differently.
St. Francis of Assisi simply advised his followers to respond to a vision or any sort of epiphany with a simple prayer, "Lord, I am not worthy" and to keep busy with the plain, obvious, joyously holy life&work that was right in front of them.

Yes. Nothing else need be said on this subject because you
have, in a manner that is not only concise, but one that shines with
true clarity, said all that needs saying. Thank you. I hope Ted is
listening...

G2

If you earn all of the money and your wife demands an accounting of every penny... I really do not know what to say to that. It is a situation well off of the edge of my radar screen. I would be making wild guesses about a category of human behavior at the far extremes of possibilty. I think I've posted this story before, but it fits here. When my siblings and I were pretty young -- probably pre-teen -- my sister asked my father, "Daddy, what would you do if you saw a ghost?" His answer, an answer I didn't understand then, was "I'd be overjoyed." I now understand that answer. Once you have experienced, without a shadow of a doubt, *any* spiritual reality you have passed the major hurdle to faith -- from 2nd hand to 1st hand. There is no turning back. Ted

Seeker

12-16-2003, 05:17 PM

In article <kJwDb.402722$275.1278027@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: Sane people do *not* see, touch, or hear things that aren't there.But many sane ones _do_.
They do not and you know that. They may misinterpret, mishear, misread
(say, a sign) or misremember what they experience, but that's not what
I'm talking about. Suppose I go into a well-lit, quiet room and
somebody I know, but not well, walks up to me, shakes my hand, and says
a few words and then leaves. I may not hear or remember clearly what
they said because I'm preoccupied. I may not pay attention to what they
are wearing or what the color of their hair and eyes are and get it
almost completely wrong when I try to describe it. I may even not
recognize the person correctly and mistake them for someone similar.
But I will be absolutely certain I met somebody, that they shook my
hand, and said something to me -- and unless I am insane that really did
happen.
But what does it say to you that your spiritual beliefs are soimportant to you, and yet the only way you can get yourself to
believein them is by postulating that the _only_ alternative is your owninsanity?

Depending on when you ask me that question, or similar ones, I'll
probably give you different answers. Right now the answer that comes to
my mind is that the gift of those experiences is so incredible I have to
every now and then reassure myself that they indeed *are* real -- sort
of like, but very, very, seriously, the old line about "pinch me; I must
be dreaming."
There is something that seems dogmatically close-minded about such anapproach. Why can't it be the case that things have happened to youthat make belief in god the most attractive explanation, without allthe melodrama?

I think you're the one who's viewing it as melodrama. I am trying to
find words that express the strength and confidence of my conviction as
best I can. I am, for instance, as absolutely certain that at about 5
PM on Wed., Jan 19, 2000, God stood before me in my kitchen and
embraced me as I am that my wife was asleep in bed next to me this
morning when I woke up. How else would you suggest I go about conveying
that certainty?

Ted

Seeker

12-16-2003, 05:19 PM

In article <c8cb5319.0312160706.462ad745@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe it doesn't help you change her the way you want her to change.But does it help you forgive her?
I haven't had serious problems with that for some time -- for the most
part I am not angry or bitter with her. (Following up on something
earlier, I'm not even angry or bitter with God -- for the most part, we
are the product of our and others free but all too often uninformed
choices and can't blame God for letting us make them, much as we'ld at
times like to.) But that doesn't mean I don't wish things were
different or that I completely understand everything. Interestingly, I understand the money issues (as best one can understand deep-seated fears) fairly well. What I don't understand
at all is her accusing me of having taken the money to buy liquor
(rather than accepting that one or the other of us was careless). That is far, far deeper than not trusting me "in general" -- it's a very specific area (and thoroughly irrational -- how much booze can $5 buy?!)Yes, I picked up on that, too. That's why I thought something elsemust be going on here.
Another thing I think is going on is that she is beginning to doubt
*her* ability to navigate in this world. From the way she reacts to
things and comments on what other people do I think it is *very*
important to her that she understands how things tick -- that her
ability to form an accurate picture of the world is something she can
rely upon. My revelation of my unhappiness casts that into question
just as much, if not more, than it does my trustworthiness.
You have (with reason) accused me of not having sufficient faith in God -- in essence, her remark about that says she doesn't either -- that she's rejecting everything she's seen and heard about
my spiritual growth and has been misleading me, or lying to me, when
she's said otherwise.Perhaps she was fishing for reassurance that she can still trust youand your entire relationship has not been built on lies? She has a
lotinvested in your truthfulness. You recently rocked it with youradmission you were unhappy. Seems understandable to me she's nowworrying what *else* you've been hiding from her. You might want togive her some slack if she's particularly jumpy right now.

Oh, that most certainly is the case. She repeatedly reminds me that
she hasn't had a good night's sleep for a year and a half now (since
the time I asked her to come to therapy with me.) I try to cut her as
much slack as I can -- and have done so for at least 6 years.
In the past seven years since I sobered up I've given no indication of wanting to drink or of abandoning my program of recovery (I can count on two hands the number of AA meetings I've missed -- and all because of family or church conflicts.) I see
my spiritual director once a month and meet with another spiritual
advisor two or three times a year -- doesn't any of that count?Did you gently remind her of all this?

Weren't you the one who just asked me to cut her some slack? (-:
Seriously, it wasn't the time to pursue anything (we were just about
to
head out the door for a Christmas party with her side of the family)
and
I was so taken aback by her remark I really was speechless.
The trust has to go two ways -- she needs to trust I'm not going to lie to her, I need
to trust she is not going to hurt me when she hears what I have to say.

How would she hurt you? I thought you were concerned with hurting
her.Please extrapolate on this if you don't mind.

I think mostly by declaring and practicing true emotional warfare -- by
deliberately and constantly throwing in my face every single one of my
past transgressions -- every time I've forgotten to do something, every
time I've paid attention to something or someone other than her when I
shouldn't have been, every mistake I've made -- she has enough of them
that come out every now and then (whether deliberately or not I don't
know -- I am quite well prepared to accept most of them as just being
her style) but were I to tell her the whole truth about me she'd have a
much larger stock of ammunition.
Unfortunately, she also wants to trust that I'm going to meet her expectations and I can't promise that.No, you can't. She says that I lost her trust when I told her I was unhappy with our marriage -- that I hid
my unhappiness from her and lied about why I was going into therapy. Deep down, I don't think that's the case -- given how strongly she reacts when I tell her painful things, no matter what she says I
think the trust was lost by my not continuing to protect her from reality.
I stopped being the invincible dragon-killling knight she wanted and turned out to be an ordinary schmuck.:-(Sounds like you need her reassurance, too.
Yup. I know that if I am legitimately going to have my needs for love,
affection, and acceptance met, she is the one who is going to have to
meet them. I have little or no assurance that that can or will be the
case. She *says* I placed an unrealistic burden on myself, but her
actions say otherwise.
Have you shared all this with her? If not, I think you should. I
thinkyou should take her hands in yours, and bare your own fears to her.
That's a very good idea. I did put on the table at our last
counselling session that my fear of telling my truths was something we
were going to have to deal with and I know that fear includes both how
it will affect her and how she will respond.
Trust really is scary.

I know that people say trust has to be earned. I'm not so sure that is
the case -- I think it something that is given as a gift.

Ted

Seeker

12-16-2003, 05:20 PM

In article <cb5b2d4e.0312151206.3f7b43bd@posting.google.com>, Ralph
DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote:
This is not what one gets from sight, sound, smell, etc. Maybe you see it differently.

Do you know the difference between apophatic and kataphatic spiritual
experiences -- and that neither is better or worse than the other
(except, perhaps, in the eyes of those who experience one and not the
other.)

Ted

Seeker

12-16-2003, 05:22 PM

In article <1g624ql.wv96r6k4uznzN%mbjq@earthlink.net>, Emma Anne
<mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote:
He told me I was living my life wrong and I needed to figure out who I am and be that person, instead of creating a mental model of a good person and forcing myself to conform. I think God should go tell Ted that, actually. . .

At one point I did come to that conclusion, although I wouldn't go so
far as to say that God led me to it. I realized after one particular
period of self-discovery that one of the main issues I was dealing with
was that I was trying to live up to other people's standards and not my
own.

Ted

Seeker

12-16-2003, 05:25 PM

In article <a07b18e4.0312122157.7652820d@posting.google.com>, geminii2
<geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
One does not need to be a trained psychiatrist to conclude that you have some serious problems. If you think it is normal to hear God speaking out loud to you personally then I can only hope you find help.

After my latest response to Ralph I'll be interested to hear what you
say next...

Ted

Doug Anderson

12-16-2003, 05:37 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <kJwDb.402722$275.1278027@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: Sane people do *not* see, touch, or hear things that aren't there.But many sane ones _do_. They do not and you know that.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I know perfectly well that people
(including myself) who are sane have experiences of things that turn
out not to be there.
They may misinterpret, mishear, misread (say, a sign) or misremember what they experience, but that's not what I'm talking about. Suppose I go into a well-lit, quiet room and somebody I know, but not well, walks up to me, shakes my hand, and says a few words and then leaves. I may not hear or remember clearly what they said because I'm preoccupied. I may not pay attention to what they are wearing or what the color of their hair and eyes are and get it almost completely wrong when I try to describe it. I may even not recognize the person correctly and mistake them for someone similar. But I will be absolutely certain I met somebody, that they shook my hand, and said something to me -- and unless I am insane that really did happen.

I guess the problem for me is that people are absolutely certain of
things all the time. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are
wrong. If they happen to be wrong, that doesn't make them crazy too.
But what does it say to you that your spiritual beliefs are soimportant to you, and yet the only way you can get yourself to believein them is by postulating that the _only_ alternative is your owninsanity? Depending on when you ask me that question, or similar ones, I'll probably give you different answers. Right now the answer that comes to my mind is that the gift of those experiences is so incredible I have to every now and then reassure myself that they indeed *are* real -- sort of like, but very, very, seriously, the old line about "pinch me; I must be dreaming."

So, paraphrasing, is the point that you are sufficiently certain of
your sanity that "I am insane or these things really happened"
actually helps convince you they really happened?
There is something that seems dogmatically close-minded about such anapproach. Why can't it be the case that things have happened to youthat make belief in god the most attractive explanation, without allthe melodrama? I think you're the one who's viewing it as melodrama.

I'm sorry "either god exists, or I'm insane" is melodramatic.
I am trying to find words that express the strength and confidence of my conviction as best I can. I am, for instance, as absolutely certain that at about 5 PM on Wed., Jan 19, 2000, God stood before me in my kitchen and embraced me as I am that my wife was asleep in bed next to me this morning when I woke up. How else would you suggest I go about conveying that certainty?

You can just say you are certain about it without juxtaposing it with
the possibility of your insanity. That reduces the melodrama.

(How, by the way, did you know it was god, and not, say, Urf, who
might look very similar?)

JWB

12-16-2003, 06:33 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pok74w9qca.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <kJwDb.402722$275.1278027@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:> Sane people do *not* see, touch, or> hear things that aren't there.But many sane ones _do_. They do not and you know that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I know perfectly well that people (including myself) who are sane have experiences of things that turn out not to be there.

I'm interested. What did you see?

Seeker

12-16-2003, 06:41 PM

In article <HfPDb.435650$pT1.288486@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB
<jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:
I'm interested. What did you see?

Something that wasn't there.
I'm interested too.

Ted

JWB

12-16-2003, 07:19 PM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:161220032041550448%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <HfPDb.435650$pT1.288486@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: I'm interested. What did you see? Something that wasn't there. I'm interested too.

Yea, but there are times that I have thought I've seen "something" or
whatnot, and can swear that someone (or something) was standing there, and
there turned out to be nobody there. I believe in ghosts and such, so I'm
interested in what Doug saw.

Joy

12-16-2003, 07:43 PM

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:HfPDb.435650$pT1.288486@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:pok74w9qca.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <kJwDb.402722$275.1278027@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: >Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: >> Sane people do *not* see, touch, or >> hear things that aren't there. > >But many sane ones _do_. > They do not and you know that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I know perfectly well that people (including myself) who are sane have experiences of things that turn out not to be there.

Another thing to consider is that our understanding of "things" and "there"
and "not there" might be incomplete. The world is a peculiar place, and
sometimes it seems more peculiar than others - but that might not have any
bearing on sanity at all.
I'm interested. What did you see?

Seeker

12-16-2003, 07:45 PM

In article <1XPDb.435833$pT1.420085@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB
<jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:
Yea, but there are times that I have thought I've seen "something" or whatnot, and can swear that someone (or something) was standing there, and there turned out to be nobody there. I believe in ghosts and such, so I'm interested in what Doug saw.

Those are I guess what I'd call gray areas. In all the cases I have in
mind it wasn't a case of "thinking" somebody was there -- there was no
doubt in my mind; the only question was why, for how long, and what
would happen next. I too believe in ghosts, although I came to that
belief long after my experiences of the physical presence of God. And
I didn't come to it by my own experience, but that of a few friends and
some objective and subjective aspects of what they told me about it and
how they told me about it.

Ted

Joy

12-16-2003, 07:46 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pok74w9qca.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... I think you're the one who's viewing it as melodrama. I'm sorry "either god exists, or I'm insane" is melodramatic.

Sorry, Ted, but it seems melodramatic to me, too. Could just be your
writing style, I guess, but you seem melodramatic to me a whole lot of the
time - or kind of Fox Mulderish - "The Truth Is Out There".
(How, by the way, did you know it was god, and not, say, Urf, who might look very similar?)

OK, now that was funny!

geminii2

12-16-2003, 07:47 PM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kJwDb.402722$275.1278027@attbi_s53>... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: I'm not speaking in generalities Doug. I'm not talking about how I generally apprehend the world -- which is far from perfect I am talking about a handful of *my* specific experiences (and analogous ones of a handful of people I know personally.) It is not a matter of being mistaken or misled by a trick of lighting or the wind through the trees or seeing a pattern in a sequence of events that is actually only a coincidence. It isn't even a matter of having a thought come to your mind and attributing that to God rather than yourself. (And it isn't even a case of being in a drug- or self-induced state of temporary insanity.) No, either I have experienced on more than one occasion a spiritual reality or I am insane. Sane people do *not* see, touch, or hear things that aren't there. But many sane ones _do_. But what does it say to you that your spiritual beliefs are so important to you, and yet the only way you can get yourself to believe in them is by postulating that the _only_ alternative is your own insanity? There is something that seems dogmatically close-minded about such an approach. Why can't it be the case that things have happened to you that make belief in god the most attractive explanation, without all the melodrama?

Amen.
G2

geminii2

12-16-2003, 08:02 PM

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) wrote in message news:<1g624ql.wv96r6k4uznzN%mbjq@earthlink.net>... geminii2 <geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote: If you are convinced that God is "audibly" speaking to you, that He has physically embraced you and that you have actually seen Him, then I think your problems are far too serious to be dealt with in this newsgroup. God spoke to me once, or so I thought. He said the opposite of what he seems to say to Ted though. He told me I was living my life wrong and I needed to figure out who I am and be that person, instead of creating a mental model of a good person and forcing myself to conform. I think God should go tell Ted that, actually. . .

I can understand someone experiencing God's presence. I can
even relate to the sense that He has spoken to you (in a manner of
speaking). But I think that the voice you say you "heard" was your
mind telling you what you "knew" or believed God wanted to say to you.
I mean, if you are saying that the voice was out loud (baritone?
demanding? supportive? insistent? fatherly?...you get the drift) and
thus audible to not only you, but to anyone else in hearing range,
then that is an entirely different "event". Yes, God works in
mysterious ways, but I suspect He'd like us to come up with our own
interpetation and knowledge of His message rather than a direct
audio-link.

urf

12-17-2003, 07:20 AM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:161220031917305815%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <kJwDb.402722$275.1278027@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: Sane people do *not* see, touch, or hear things that aren't there.But many sane ones _do_. They do not and you know that. They may misinterpret, mishear, misread (say, a sign) or misremember what they experience, but that's not what I'm talking about. Suppose I go into a well-lit, quiet room and somebody I know, but not well, walks up to me, shakes my hand, and says a few words and then leaves. I may not hear or remember clearly what they said because I'm preoccupied. I may not pay attention to what they are wearing or what the color of their hair and eyes are and get it almost completely wrong when I try to describe it. I may even not recognize the person correctly and mistake them for someone similar. But I will be absolutely certain I met somebody, that they shook my hand, and said something to me -- and unless I am insane that really did happen.But what does it say to you that your spiritual beliefs are soimportant to you, and yet the only way you can get yourself to believein them is by postulating that the _only_ alternative is your owninsanity? Depending on when you ask me that question, or similar ones, I'll probably give you different answers. Right now the answer that comes to my mind is that the gift of those experiences is so incredible I have to every now and then reassure myself that they indeed *are* real -- sort of like, but very, very, seriously, the old line about "pinch me; I must be dreaming."There is something that seems dogmatically close-minded about such anapproach. Why can't it be the case that things have happened to youthat make belief in god the most attractive explanation, without allthe melodrama? I think you're the one who's viewing it as melodrama. I am trying to find words that express the strength and confidence of my conviction as best I can. I am, for instance, as absolutely certain that at about 5 PM on Wed., Jan 19, 2000, God stood before me in my kitchen and embraced me as I am that my wife was asleep in bed next to me this morning when I woke up. How else would you suggest I go about conveying that certainty? Ted

I have had a similar experience Ted. That does not mean that I believe in
God. At the time it was very powerful and it has changed my life even
carried
forward to this moment. What I believe in is my own personal experience
because
I was there. The experience was real. It opened me up to see in ways that
had not been available to me before. Many, many years have passed since
that moment. I no longer believe in God as most humans do nor do I
disbelieve
as most humans do. I no longer refer to God as God. I have been searching
in my limited way for understanding but I now realize that it is beyond
conceptualization
and therefore description.

The message to me then (as now) was that I am perfect.

I have no suggestions for you. You are perfect too.

Seeker

12-17-2003, 04:10 PM

In article <a07b18e4.0312162002.760860b5@posting.google.com>, geminii2
<geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I mean, if you are saying that the voice was out loud (baritone?demanding? supportive? insistent? fatherly?...you get the drift) andthus audible to not only you, but to anyone else in hearing range,then that is an entirely different "event". Yes, God works inmysterious ways, but I suspect He'd like us to come up with our owninterpetation and knowledge of His message rather than a directaudio-link.

(a) why do you assume that if God appears to someone that is audible
or visible to all nearby?

(b) why do you assume he would always prefer to communicate vaguely
(letting us come up with our own interpretation) than clearly?

(c) why do you assume God is always a He?

Ted

Seeker

12-17-2003, 06:59 PM

In article <rJ_Db.48$9V4.23@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
God looks like a Puerto Rican steambath attendant according to Bruce J. Friedman.

A friend of mine says She's a black pregnant Vietnamese woman.

Ted

Seeker

12-17-2003, 07:18 PM

In article <Lu_Db.11$9V4.1@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
I have had a similar experience Ted. That does not mean that I believe in God. At the time it was very powerful and it has changed my life even carried forward to this moment. What I believe in is my own personal experience because I was there. The experience was real. It opened me up to see in ways that had not been available to me before. Many, many years have passed since that moment. I no longer believe in God as most humans do nor do I disbelieve as most humans do. I no longer refer to God as God. I have been searching in my limited way for understanding but I now realize that it is beyond conceptualization and therefore description.

Naturally I'd be interested in continuing the conversation, but not
publicly.

My experiences, as I've indicated, were many, stretched out over the
course of three or four years. They were both connected to (related
to) each other and to other things going on, so they have much more a
pattern -- and, hence, "message" -- I think than a single experience
can have. But I know of other people who also have had just a single
such encounter and it too has changed their life. I personally think
one of the riskiest things to do in all this is to try to figure out
*why* God (or whatever you want to call what you experienced) is, or is
not, doing what God seems to be doing. The second riskiest thing is to
generalize from your own experience, or that of a small handful of
people with similar experiences, to statements about how God does or
will behave. I will doggedly examine the authenticity of somebody's
experience, but once I'm convinced (as often by a spiritual sense as by
reason) that it's authentic, I don't question its validity and try to
learn from it, to the extent I can. But I don't necessarily expect
that I can or should learn much from experiences that are from really
widely different traditions -- it's like taking a page out of Great
Expectations and putting it in the middle of The Lord of the Rings and
expecting to make any sense of it. While traditions don't in
themselves bring about spiritual experiences one has to recognize that
God is not passive and is of course very well aware of our backgrounds.
And while of course God is always capable of surprises it does make
sense that the way God chooses to appear to or interact with someone is
not going to be so foreign from where they are as to be meaningless or
rejected out of hand.

Ted

urf

12-17-2003, 07:46 PM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:171220032118418271%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <Lu_Db.11$9V4.1@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: I have had a similar experience Ted. That does not mean that I believe
in God. At the time it was very powerful and it has changed my life even carried forward to this moment. What I believe in is my own personal experience because I was there. The experience was real. It opened me up to see in ways
that had not been available to me before. Many, many years have passed since that moment. I no longer believe in God as most humans do nor do I disbelieve as most humans do. I no longer refer to God as God. I have been
searching in my limited way for understanding but I now realize that it is beyond conceptualization and therefore description. Naturally I'd be interested in continuing the conversation, but not publicly. My experiences, as I've indicated, were many, stretched out over the course of three or four years. They were both connected to (related to) each other and to other things going on, so they have much more a pattern -- and, hence, "message" -- I think than a single experience can have. But I know of other people who also have had just a single such encounter and it too has changed their life. I personally think one of the riskiest things to do in all this is to try to figure out *why* God (or whatever you want to call what you experienced) is, or is not, doing what God seems to be doing. The second riskiest thing is to generalize from your own experience, or that of a small handful of people with similar experiences, to statements about how God does or will behave. I will doggedly examine the authenticity of somebody's experience, but once I'm convinced (as often by a spiritual sense as by reason) that it's authentic, I don't question its validity and try to learn from it, to the extent I can. But I don't necessarily expect that I can or should learn much from experiences that are from really widely different traditions -- it's like taking a page out of Great Expectations and putting it in the middle of The Lord of the Rings and expecting to make any sense of it. While traditions don't in themselves bring about spiritual experiences one has to recognize that God is not passive and is of course very well aware of our backgrounds. And while of course God is always capable of surprises it does make sense that the way God chooses to appear to or interact with someone is not going to be so foreign from where they are as to be meaningless or rejected out of hand. Ted

My experience and my years following that experience cause me to
disagree with everything that you have written in the above paragraph.

I don't not believe that God has intelligence, motive, intentions
,expectations
or any other reason to behave. In fact God or what you experience in your
limited view
does not behave in any way that can be considered reasonable. That which
is indescribable will not be confined to any set of man made rules.

At best you can take comfort in your own experience, but leave it at that.
Study all that you like. Set yourself any goal that you choose. Assume any
result
that makes you momentarily happy. It simply does not matter. You will never
find
lasting truth or any answer that can be sustained. It does not exist.
That which is indescribable does not care for you or anything else in the
universe.
It asks nothing and gives nothing. It does not provide nor does it hinder.
It has no hungers
save one. That being possibility. What is possible happens. Sometimes it
just so happens
that it happens to you. The sole purpose of possibility is experience, but
not for you, for it.
Outcome is irrelevant, positive and negative distinctions do not exist nor
do they matter,
they are the same to it.

Consider yourself a perfect example of whatever it is that you are.

By those rules you should begin to describe what you are, if you dare.

Seeker

12-17-2003, 09:18 PM

In article <o7WdnU534-5hv3yi4p2dnA@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
My experience and my years following that experience cause me to disagree with everything that you have written in the above paragraph. I don't not believe that God has intelligence, motive, intentions ,expectations or any other reason to behave. In fact God or what you experience in your limited view does not behave in any way that can be considered reasonable. That which is indescribable will not be confined to any set of man made rules.

All that from *one* experience, uncorrobated by anybody else?
Amazing...

Ted

urf

12-18-2003, 06:08 AM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:171220032318139624%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <o7WdnU534-5hv3yi4p2dnA@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: My experience and my years following that experience cause me to disagree with everything that you have written in the above paragraph. I don't not believe that God has intelligence, motive, intentions ,expectations or any other reason to behave. In fact God or what you experience in
your limited view does not behave in any way that can be considered reasonable. That which is indescribable will not be confined to any set of man made rules. All that from *one* experience, uncorrobated by anybody else? Amazing... Ted

Disbelief?

Emma Anne

12-18-2003, 09:51 AM

urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote:
"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1g624lj.1cq7la41m9gt1jN%mbjq@earthlink.net... shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: For example, when I'm commuting and I find myself obsessing over my personal problems, I force myself to stop and look around myself. I will notice little things like the way the light hits the trees. The way the line in the road comes rushing towards me. The sound of the air whistling past my car. The smile on the toll booth collector's face. The heat coming from the dash board. The dust on the dashboard. Try it sometime. Such meditation practices are another tried & true way to reach transcendence. I am doing this too. I say to myself "Be here Now." from the book of the same name. BTW he's "Still Here" Now.

Is it a good book? I'm afraid I just stole the title.

Ralph DuBose

12-18-2003, 05:13 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<161220031920598351%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <cb5b2d4e.0312151206.3f7b43bd@posting.google.com>, Ralph DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote: This is not what one gets from sight, sound, smell, etc. Maybe you see it differently. Do you know the difference between apophatic and kataphatic spiritual experiences -- and that neither is better or worse than the other (except, perhaps, in the eyes of those who experience one and not the other.) Ted

The truth is, very few of your likely readers would know what the
hell you are talking about here. If you were more interested in
communicating an idea, you would have referred to the dichotomy of Zen
practice and Tantric (or Tibetan) practice. It means the same thing
and a lot more folks around here, I bet, know something about Eastern
spirituality than know (or care) about the categories used by Greek
speaking Catholic theologians.
But there is still a big problem here and that is that these
categories refer to different approaches in regard to what we do for
the sake of spiritual exercise -- call it prayer, meditation,
whatever. The thing you have been talking about, god hugging you in
your kitchen for no good reason at all... is way different. That sort
of thing is about what (you claim) god is doing toward you. You are
not talking about a form of prayer/meditation at all. So your
invocation of the different types of prayer/meditation is merely a
source of confusion here.
In a way, it is much worse than irrelevant. Try this: Go see a Zen
master/teacher and tell him that "God likes to hug me in my kitchen
every now and then it is a big surprise and I have to pinch myself
because I know it is YAhweh_God-of-Hosts deep in my heart and this
gives me something to talk about with lots of women because my wife
does not understand me." You can be sure he would recommend a
Psychiatrist.
What is even worse, much worse from my point of view, is that you
are still humping a type of theology that is a dry hole. By your own
admission, you get a few hours of gods time every 6 years or so. And
you think that is a miracle.

geminii2

12-18-2003, 06:54 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<161220031920598351%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <cb5b2d4e.0312151206.3f7b43bd@posting.google.com>, Ralph DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote: This is not what one gets from sight, sound, smell, etc. Maybe you see it differently. Do you know the difference between apophatic and kataphatic spiritual experiences -- and that neither is better or worse than the other (except, perhaps, in the eyes of those who experience one and not the other.) Ted

This is so lame. There is nothing spiritual or godlike in your
weak attempts at one-ups-manship or the manner in which you try to
show your "superior" knowledge in all things religious. I say "try"
because you never succeed in doing anything other than sound like a
whining child crying out, "Look at me, I'm somebody and I can show
you! I'm special and you're not!"
You seem to keep missing the point that the truly special, the
amazingly unique and gifted never have to prove themselves to anyone
else. They just get on with doing great things. They do not require
an audience and shun affirmation...they simply know they have been
blessed. They are content in the moment and have no calling to
"seek"...they are already home.
Truly special individuals know that they have been chosen in some
way and never have to announce it to others. They neither require or
desire an audience. That is because those who are "worthy" are
obvious to all. It is only insecure losers who feel they must invest
time in trying to convince the world that they are extraordinary.

geminii2

12-18-2003, 07:04 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<171220031810289142%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <a07b18e4.0312162002.760860b5@posting.google.com>, geminii2 <geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote: I mean, if you are saying that the voice was out loud (baritone?demanding? supportive? insistent? fatherly?...you get the drift) andthus audible to not only you, but to anyone else in hearing range,then that is an entirely different "event". Yes, God works inmysterious ways, but I suspect He'd like us to come up with our owninterpetation and knowledge of His message rather than a directaudio-link. (a) why do you assume that if God appears to someone that is audible or visible to all nearby? (b) why do you assume he would always prefer to communicate vaguely (letting us come up with our own interpretation) than clearly? (c) why do you assume God is always a He? Ted

No Ted, I make none of these assumptions...not even close. If
you are going to keep intentionally missing the point while investing
energy in dissecting the message then I will have to assume you do not
really want to be helped.

Bill

12-18-2003, 07:49 PM

geminii2 wrote: Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<171220031810289142%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <a07b18e4.0312162002.760860b5@posting.google.com>, geminii2 <geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote: I mean, if you are saying that the voice was out loud (baritone? demanding? supportive? insistent? fatherly?...you get the drift) and thus audible to not only you, but to anyone else in hearing range, then that is an entirely different "event". Yes, God works in mysterious ways, but I suspect He'd like us to come up with our own interpetation and knowledge of His message rather than a direct audio-link. (a) why do you assume that if God appears to someone that is audible or visible to all nearby? (b) why do you assume he would always prefer to communicate vaguely (letting us come up with our own interpretation) than clearly? (c) why do you assume God is always a He? Ted No Ted, I make none of these assumptions...not even close. If you are going to keep intentionally missing the point while investing energy in dissecting the message then I will have to assume you do not really want to be helped.

All I wanna know is....how many years has this been the same old story? Have
we reached the 5 year mark yet? (aka: are we home yet, mom?)

urf

12-18-2003, 08:15 PM

Yes, it is an extrodinary book. It was written by Richard Alpert aka Baba
Ram Dass.

http://archives.theconnection.org/archive/2002/03/0326b.shtml

The book is somewhat dated now. It is a big fat paperback that looks like it
was written while on drugs.
It has pages with just a few words scrawled or pictures drawn across them.
Like a stream of
conciousness thing. But what a conciousness. Likely it's too hard to get
through these days but back
in the sixties there were many who loved it and who became much more
spiritually inclined. He has
written many books since then.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0517543052/spiritwalkA/104-2836866-7707121

Ram Dass as he has come to be known is the son of a wealthy businessman who
went to the
best schools and ultimately wound up teaching at Harvard along with the late
Timothy Leary.
The two did a lot of experimenting, particularly with LSD. They split up and
choose different paths.
Ram Dass went off to India and Tibet where he studied Eastern religions. He
came back and
and brought the message of "Be Here Now." It was part of many "boomers"
lives back then.

http://www.spiritwalk.org/ramdass-bio.htm

Since then he has spent his life in service to God and has been instrumental
in forwarding the
spirituality of many people. Recently he suffered a stroke which almost
killed him. During his recovery
which will ever be complete he continued to teach. He brought me to tears
when he explained how
his stroke was a blessing. His most recent book is titled "Still Here".

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1g65s05.yek76hswa6rzN%mbjq@earthlink.net... urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: "Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1g624lj.1cq7la41m9gt1jN%mbjq@earthlink.net... shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: > For example, when I'm commuting and I find > myself obsessing over my personal problems, I force myself to stop
and > look around myself. I will notice little things like the way the
light > hits the trees. The way the line in the road comes rushing towards
me. > The sound of the air whistling past my car. The smile on the toll > booth collector's face. The heat coming from the dash board. The
dust > on the dashboard. Try it sometime. Such meditation practices are > another tried & true way to reach transcendence. I am doing this too. I say to myself "Be here Now." from the book of the same name. BTW he's "Still Here" Now. Is it a good book? I'm afraid I just stole the title.

Seeker

12-18-2003, 09:50 PM

In article <pxiEb.3012$Xo6.2272@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
Disbelief?

No, more curiosity, puzzlement. Unless you hang out here just for the
sport of it you seem to be the sort of person who does value collective
wisdom (and also understands how ambiguous it can be.) Whatever words
you put to it, it would seem to me that your experience demonstrated to
you that experiential reality has broader dimensions to it than most
people can admit to on the basis of first-hand knowledge. I would
think you'd be interested in exploring what others who have experienced
that same awareness of "something else" have said about it and tried to
fit your piece of the puzzle into theirs -- perhaps in the process
recognizing maybe there is more than one puzzle -- rather than
rejecting all except yours. For the most part I find those who say "it
is this way and not that way" are judgementally excludiing the
possibility it can be both, or that for one person it may be one way
and for another a different way.

Ted

shinypenny

12-19-2003, 06:52 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<181220032350336458%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <pxiEb.3012$Xo6.2272@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Disbelief? No, more curiosity, puzzlement. Unless you hang out here just for the sport of it you seem to be the sort of person who does value collective wisdom (and also understands how ambiguous it can be.) Whatever words you put to it, it would seem to me that your experience demonstrated to you that experiential reality has broader dimensions to it than most people can admit to on the basis of first-hand knowledge. I would think you'd be interested in exploring what others who have experienced that same awareness of "something else" have said about it and tried to fit your piece of the puzzle into theirs -- perhaps in the process recognizing maybe there is more than one puzzle -- rather than rejecting all except yours. For the most part I find those who say "it is this way and not that way" are judgementally excludiing the possibility it can be both, or that for one person it may be one way and for another a different way. Ted

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

jen

Tracey

12-19-2003, 07:34 AM

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

Nope.

Tracey

Bill

12-19-2003, 09:12 AM

shinypenny wrote: Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<181220032350336458%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <pxiEb.3012$Xo6.2272@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Disbelief? No, more curiosity, puzzlement. Unless you hang out here just for the sport of it you seem to be the sort of person who does value collective wisdom (and also understands how ambiguous it can be.) Whatever words you put to it, it would seem to me that your experience demonstrated to you that experiential reality has broader dimensions to it than most people can admit to on the basis of first-hand knowledge. I would think you'd be interested in exploring what others who have experienced that same awareness of "something else" have said about it and tried to fit your piece of the puzzle into theirs -- perhaps in the process recognizing maybe there is more than one puzzle -- rather than rejecting all except yours. For the most part I find those who say "it is this way and not that way" are judgementally excludiing the possibility it can be both, or that for one person it may be one way and for another a different way. Ted Am I the only one who sees the irony here? jen

Absolutely not. "Most fascinating", said Spock.

urf

12-19-2003, 12:10 PM

It works in mysterious ways.

more later.

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0312190652.527a2979@posting.google.c om... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:<181220032350336458%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <pxiEb.3012$Xo6.2272@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Disbelief? No, more curiosity, puzzlement. Unless you hang out here just for the sport of it you seem to be the sort of person who does value collective wisdom (and also understands how ambiguous it can be.) Whatever words you put to it, it would seem to me that your experience demonstrated to you that experiential reality has broader dimensions to it than most people can admit to on the basis of first-hand knowledge. I would think you'd be interested in exploring what others who have experienced that same awareness of "something else" have said about it and tried to fit your piece of the puzzle into theirs -- perhaps in the process recognizing maybe there is more than one puzzle -- rather than rejecting all except yours. For the most part I find those who say "it is this way and not that way" are judgementally excludiing the possibility it can be both, or that for one person it may be one way and for another a different way. Ted Am I the only one who sees the irony here? jen

Emma Anne

12-19-2003, 12:29 PM

urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote:
He brought me to tears when he explained how his stroke was a blessing. His most recent book is titled "Still Here".

Thanks for all the info, Urf. He sounds like a really interesting guy.

Seeker

12-19-2003, 05:44 PM

In article <pkGEb.10872$0s2.7219@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
Bill in Co. <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
shinypenny wrote:
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? Absolutely not.

I saw it too.

Ted

urf

12-19-2003, 08:11 PM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:181220032350336458%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <pxiEb.3012$Xo6.2272@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Disbelief? No, more curiosity, puzzlement. Unless you hang out here just for the sport of it you seem to be the sort of person who does value collective wisdom (and also understands how ambiguous it can be.) Whatever words you put to it, it would seem to me that your experience demonstrated to you that experiential reality has broader dimensions to it than most people can admit to on the basis of first-hand knowledge. I would think you'd be interested in exploring what others who have experienced that same awareness of "something else" have said about it and tried to fit your piece of the puzzle into theirs -- perhaps in the process recognizing maybe there is more than one puzzle -- rather than rejecting all except yours. For the most part I find those who say "it is this way and not that way" are judgementally excludiing the possibility it can be both, or that for one person it may be one way and for another a different way. Ted

Real reality really isn't real, is it? What you think, is not what I think
but I think

that we can agree on many things.

We agree that my experience is valid therefore, God may not exist as you
understand God. ( I understand that this may be viewed by you as
antagonistic). God may also exist precisely the way you imagine him to
exist. I could live with that, and see no contradiction there. It is what it
is. What it is does not care what I think.

Remember my saying possibilities?

Your experiences, my experiences in fact anyone's experiences are possible
ways to encounter the world and by extension, God (or "it" in my case). My
experience of "it" combined with years of thinking about that experience
produced the expressions in the previous post. I did for a period explore
the way others view their experience of it. I still do, you may see me refer
to others in my posts from time to time. I also continue to be open minded
on the subject. I can and do learn from others, particularly children and
nature. I am not so vain (although rather) as to think I know it all. I came
to my present understanding that my view of it is just as valuable as anyone
else's view and more so to me. Therefore, I have no need to explore or share
that with others except on occasions such as this one. I simply enjoy its
fruits unto myself. I should also point out that my view of what God is or
is not has changed many times and in many ways over the years. I expect it
will continue to morph for that is my nature. I question everything. I make
no effort to "make my piece fit"; rather I accept that my piece does fit.
You may not recognize how but here I am. I fit perfectly into my life and
that extends to my philosophical view of the world and its mysteries. In
the moment of my epiphany (for lack of a better term), I was filled with all
the knowledge that I needed to live the rest of my days in a reasonable
harmony with myself. Perhaps this is an area where we differ most. I do
admit to struggling often but that is when I get too caught up in worldly
bull****. The simplicity of the message I received in a fraction of a second
cuts like a razor through the bull**** even still. The message to me was
"you're alright". That was it. It did not come in words but rather in a
moment of knowing.

Doug Anderson

12-19-2003, 09:29 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <pxiEb.3012$Xo6.2272@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Disbelief? No, more curiosity, puzzlement. Unless you hang out here just for the sport of it you seem to be the sort of person who does value collective wisdom (and also understands how ambiguous it can be.) Whatever words you put to it, it would seem to me that your experience demonstrated to you that experiential reality has broader dimensions to it than most people can admit to on the basis of first-hand knowledge.

Though my experience is that most people can admit to fairly broad
dimensions to reality (both experienced and not). We just have
trouble _agreeing_ about exactly what those dimensions are.

Seeker

12-21-2003, 03:10 PM

In article <a07b18e4.0312181904.4d8b43ff@posting.google.com>, geminii2
<geminii2@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
No Ted, I make none of these assumptions...not even close.

Let me quote you:
Yes, God works inmysterious ways, but I suspect He'd like us to come up with our owninterpetation and knowledge of His message rather than a directaudio-link.

Either you believe what you wrote or you don't.

If you are going to keep intentionally missing the point while investing energy in dissecting the message then I will have to assume you do not really want to be helped.

And the point is? And why do you think I need help (in this area)?

Ted

Seeker

12-21-2003, 03:19 PM

In article <h7REb.404665$Dw6.1261571@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Though my experience is that most people can admit to fairly broad dimensions to reality (both experienced and not). We just have trouble _agreeing_ about exactly what those dimensions are.

I wonder how true that is. There are people who say the only reality
is that which can be experienced by our five senses and measured by the
instruments of science -- in the language of the physicist, everything
about us can be described in terms of the matter and energy that our
bodies are composed of. Destroy the body, and there's no possibility
of there being anything left. What do you say to that?

Ted

Seeker

12-21-2003, 06:07 PM

In article <cb5b2d4e.0312181713.5c47f91c@posting.google.com>, Ralph
DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote:
And you think that is a miracle.

It is.

Ted

Seeker

12-21-2003, 06:12 PM

In article <pok74w9qca.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can just say you are certain about it without juxtaposing it with the possibility of your insanity.

Would it have made any difference to how you've reacted? I don't think
so -- so at least I admit there are two possible explanations; given
what I understand of how the brain works and my knowledge of physics, I
can't think of a third one. (How, by the way, did you know it was god, and not, say, Urf, who might look very similar?)

How do you know when you see your wife that it is her, and not some
woman who looks very similar -- because you recognize her. Same
thing, is the best I can put it.

Ted

Seeker

12-21-2003, 06:16 PM

In article <cb5b2d4e.0312131007.5597675a@posting.google.com>, Ralph
DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote:
I did not answer your question about what I read. I have my reasons for taking that posture.

Which are?

But you did not answer my question, which was about what fills your life at those moments when your senses are not throbbing from delight at the Presence of the Divine.

Most of the time, doing what's in front of me.

I think my question is more important than yours. It points towards the emptiness that is the result of Yahweh worship.

You have spoken of worship more than once, and in a derogatory tone
each time. Why do you think people who do, and not just because it is
the thing to do, or because it makes them feel good, worship?

Ted

Ralph DuBose

12-21-2003, 06:22 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<211220031719388069%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <h7REb.404665$Dw6.1261571@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Though my experience is that most people can admit to fairly broad dimensions to reality (both experienced and not). We just have trouble _agreeing_ about exactly what those dimensions are. I wonder how true that is. There are people who say the only reality is that which can be experienced by our five senses and measured by the instruments of science -- in the language of the physicist, everything about us can be described in terms of the matter and energy that our bodies are composed of. Destroy the body, and there's no possibility of there being anything left. What do you say to that? Ted

It is part of our nature that we routinely respond as if we were
experiencing events which cannot be explained by ordinary senses.
Either we are constantly experiencing hallucinations or there is some
authenticity to the experiences.

Seeker

12-21-2003, 06:25 PM

In article <wuGdnTYU_slkVn6iRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
The message to me was "you're alright". That was it. It did not come in words but rather in a moment of knowing.

Sounds God to me. (I accidentally left an "o" out of good, and decided
to let it stay, but going back to capitalize it.)

Seriously, the major problem I had with what I read you saying the
first time in this thread was the sense that you were trying to make
universal pronouncements -- something valid for everybody. That may
have just been an unfortunate choice of words, or a misperception on my
part. What you just wrote here (and in the paragraphs before) is
something that I am quite at ease with. In fact, given my general
reaction to what you've written here over the months I should have
realized there was something wrong (never mind what) when I reacted so
negatively this time around.

shinypenny

12-21-2003, 07:31 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<211220031719388069%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <h7REb.404665$Dw6.1261571@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Though my experience is that most people can admit to fairly broad dimensions to reality (both experienced and not). We just have trouble _agreeing_ about exactly what those dimensions are. I wonder how true that is. There are people who say the only reality is that which can be experienced by our five senses and measured by the instruments of science -- in the language of the physicist, everything about us can be described in terms of the matter and energy that our bodies are composed of. Destroy the body, and there's no possibility of there being anything left. What do you say to that? Ted

But matter and energy doesn't get destroyed; it gets recycled. I'm
personally not bothered by the idea that my body's going to be pushing
up daisies some day. Frankly, I always thought it was a shame it was
illegal to bury someone without a coffin. I want my body to continue
on in the circle of life. Sure, maybe my human brain, when it ceases
to exist, will no longer think and feel, but who's to say that a daisy
or a maggot's sensory experience of the world is any lesser than ours?

jen

Doug Anderson

12-21-2003, 07:56 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <h7REb.404665$Dw6.1261571@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Though my experience is that most people can admit to fairly broad dimensions to reality (both experienced and not). We just have trouble _agreeing_ about exactly what those dimensions are. I wonder how true that is. There are people who say the only reality is that which can be experienced by our five senses and measured by the instruments of science -- in the language of the physicist, everything about us can be described in terms of the matter and energy that our bodies are composed of.

Yes, there are those who say that. (I'm not one of them.) But even
they have to admit that our sense and our physical instruments suggest
a fantastically rich and broad reality.

But lots of things obviously _can't_ be measured with scientific
instruments. For example, emotions are real, and can't be measured by
the instruments of science. Furthermore, scientific instruments
remain extremely crude at measuring physical phenomena. And that
which we can measure we still haven't come to good intuitive grips
with (think of how difficult it is for people to believe in quantum
physics).

So while some abstract platonic set of scientific instruments _might_
be sufficient to measure all reality (if you neglect the uncertainty
principle, which reminds you that measuring effects that which you are
trying to measure), in reality it is impossible to believe in
scientific instruments that good, or in calculations precise enough to
proceed from such measurements to knowledge of the things we really
care about.
Destroy the body, and there's no possibility of there being anything left. What do you say to that?

Nothing left? Too solipsistic for me. Destroy _everyone's_ body and
there is nothing left. Destroy one person's body and everyone else is
left.

Doug Anderson

12-21-2003, 07:58 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <pok74w9qca.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: You can just say you are certain about it without juxtaposing it with the possibility of your insanity. Would it have made any difference to how you've reacted? I don't think so -- so at least I admit there are two possible explanations; given what I understand of how the brain works and my knowledge of physics, I can't think of a third one. (How, by the way, did you know it was god, and not, say, Urf, who might look very similar?) How do you know when you see your wife that it is her, and not some woman who looks very similar -- because you recognize her. Same thing, is the best I can put it.

But the first time you saw this man, it was someone you'd never seen
before. How could you tell whether it was god or urf?

I certainly couldn't have told anyone what my wife's name was, or very
much about her (besides the fact that she was beautiful and didn't
care about her clothes, both of which things ought to apply to god as
well) the first time I saw her.

Ralph DuBose

12-22-2003, 05:51 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<211220032012241544%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <pok74w9qca.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: You can just say you are certain about it without juxtaposing it with the possibility of your insanity. Would it have made any difference to how you've reacted? I don't think so -- so at least I admit there are two possible explanations; given what I understand of how the brain works and my knowledge of physics, I can't think of a third one.

The first thing to know about how the brain works is that sensory
"experience" is constructed by the brain from incoming nerve impulses.
The brain very actively constructs a meaningful interpretation of what
is being seen or heard. Sensory data that does not fit the developing
picture tends to be unnoticed and missing peices tend to be filled in
-- all for the sake of coherence. The process of conscious perception
depends on meaningfulness and contextualization. If the sight-sound
picture is unrecognisable as a familiar thing, perception is usually
very sketchy. This is why honest, dis-interested eye witness reports
of crimes or historical events vary so much. It is not a question of
being insane or dishonest vs. "It really happened the way I saw it.".
It is just a reflection of how human perception works.

(How, by the way, did you know it was god, and not, say, Urf, who might look very similar?) How do you know when you see your wife that it is her, and not some woman who looks very similar -- because you recognize her. Same thing, is the best I can put it. Ted

Ralph DuBose

12-22-2003, 06:21 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<211220032016215770%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <cb5b2d4e.0312131007.5597675a@posting.google.com>, Ralph DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote: I did not answer your question about what I read. I have my reasons for taking that posture. Which are?

Discourse about spirituality and religion is always highly symbolic
and people vary a great deal in the meaning/interpretation they
attached to such language. So, to a large extent, everyone reads a
different book when the subject is something like "Climbing Mt.
Carmel." So it is largely a waste of time to refer to such texts as a
shorthand means of efficient communication.
Second, there is the question of good manners. Say what you believe
in the best words you can put together. That way, your counterparts
can respond to you, if they feel the need. Name-dropping books you
read is just more fog and smoke. That is, if your primary goal is
discussing the subject.
For what it is worth, there is hardly the question of using someone
elses ideas without attribution because these ideas are very, very old
and we are all just recycling them (with few exceptions).

But you did not answer my question, which was about what fills your life at those moments when your senses are not throbbing from delight at the Presence of the Divine. Most of the time, doing what's in front of me.

Many spiritual teachers have spent years yelling at people to get
them to look for spirituality/authenticity right NOW. Now is all there
is. Remembering and/or anticipating is always a second hand, second
rate form of experience.
Whatever happened to you in your kitchen is not real now, except as
an image in your memory bank.
Do you think that images of other people (or of god) retained in
your brain are aware of you? We can think of these memories but can
these memories think of us?
NOW!!!!

I think my question is more important than yours. It points towards the emptiness that is the result of Yahweh worship. You have spoken of worship more than once, and in a derogatory tone each time. Why do you think people who do, and not just because it is the thing to do, or because it makes them feel good, worship? Ted

urf

12-22-2003, 07:00 AM

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0312211931.1ea2d631@posting.google.c om... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:<211220031719388069%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <h7REb.404665$Dw6.1261571@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Though my experience is that most people can admit to fairly broad dimensions to reality (both experienced and not). We just have trouble _agreeing_ about exactly what those dimensions are. I wonder how true that is. There are people who say the only reality is that which can be experienced by our five senses and measured by the instruments of science -- in the language of the physicist, everything about us can be described in terms of the matter and energy that our bodies are composed of. Destroy the body, and there's no possibility of there being anything left. What do you say to that? Ted But matter and energy doesn't get destroyed; it gets recycled. I'm personally not bothered by the idea that my body's going to be pushing up daisies some day. Frankly, I always thought it was a shame it was illegal to bury someone without a coffin. I want my body to continue on in the circle of life. Sure, maybe my human brain, when it ceases to exist, will no longer think and feel, but who's to say that a daisy or a maggot's sensory experience of the world is any lesser than ours? jen

This is very similar to Estelle's view. She wants to be buried in a plain
pine box that will
decompose fairly rapidly. Also there was a movie about some young girls, I
have
forgotten the name but not the message. One of the girls who sadly died
young had
wished to have herself buried under an apple tree so that the roots of the
tree
would grow through her. She suspected that the apples would taste sweeter to
all that ate them.

I recently started reading a book entitled "The Selfish Gene" by Richard
Dawkins.
Heavy stuff but he shows a way that our immortality can be seen through our
genetics.

urf

12-22-2003, 07:08 AM

"Ralph DuBose" <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:cb5b2d4e.0312220551.32562e57@posting.google.c om... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:<211220032012241544%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <pok74w9qca.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
The first thing to know about how the brain works is that sensory "experience" is constructed by the brain from incoming nerve impulses. The brain very actively constructs a meaningful interpretation of what is being seen or heard. Sensory data that does not fit the developing picture tends to be unnoticed and missing peices tend to be filled in -- all for the sake of coherence. The process of conscious perception depends on meaningfulness and contextualization. If the sight-sound picture is unrecognisable as a familiar thing, perception is usually very sketchy. This is why honest, dis-interested eye witness reports of crimes or historical events vary so much. It is not a question of being insane or dishonest vs. "It really happened the way I saw it.". It is just a reflection of how human perception works.

In some interesting experiments of a few years ago it was found out
that complete fabrications are honestly "made up" to keep things
"coherent". Our brains, can not stand to have things disorderly it seems.

Doug Anderson

12-22-2003, 07:24 AM

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Ralph DuBose" <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote in message news:cb5b2d4e.0312220551.32562e57@posting.google.c om... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<211220032012241544%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <pok74w9qca.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: The first thing to know about how the brain works is that sensory "experience" is constructed by the brain from incoming nerve impulses. The brain very actively constructs a meaningful interpretation of what is being seen or heard. Sensory data that does not fit the developing picture tends to be unnoticed and missing peices tend to be filled in -- all for the sake of coherence. The process of conscious perception depends on meaningfulness and contextualization. If the sight-sound picture is unrecognisable as a familiar thing, perception is usually very sketchy. This is why honest, dis-interested eye witness reports of crimes or historical events vary so much. It is not a question of being insane or dishonest vs. "It really happened the way I saw it.". It is just a reflection of how human perception works. In some interesting experiments of a few years ago it was found out that complete fabrications are honestly "made up" to keep things "coherent". Our brains, can not stand to have things disorderly it seems.

It is one of our strengths as a species, that we want things to be
orderly. So we try to fit information into patterns. This enables us
to discover patterns.

This is also one of our weaknesses, since we sometimes find patterns
which don't exist, and sometimes see patterns where there are none.

shinypenny

12-22-2003, 10:33 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mXtFb.14498$VB2.32202@attbi_s51>...
But lots of things obviously _can't_ be measured with scientific instruments. For example, emotions are real, and can't be measured by the instruments of science.

Hmmm.... I'm not so sure about that, Doug. Just saw a robotics
exhibit. Ever hear of Kismet? It's a robot designed to sense and mimic
human emotion. There are ways to "measure" emotion. For example, if
you're sad, you tend to frown and your eyes droop. These physical
indicators of emotion can be observed and measured.

jen

Ignoramus13251

12-22-2003, 10:37 AM

In article <c8cb5319.0312221033.51c9b857@posting.google.com>, shinypenny wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mXtFb.14498$VB2.32202@attbi_s51>... But lots of things obviously _can't_ be measured with scientific instruments. For example, emotions are real, and can't be measured by the instruments of science. Hmmm.... I'm not so sure about that, Doug. Just saw a robotics exhibit. Ever hear of Kismet? It's a robot designed to sense and mimic human emotion. There are ways to "measure" emotion. For example, if you're sad, you tend to frown and your eyes droop. These physical indicators of emotion can be observed and measured. jen

have you heard of the artificial intelligence robot Splotchy?

http://www.algebra.com/cgi-bin/chat.mpl

It maintains a conversation on the level of a little below average
teenager or a gossiper.

i

Bill

12-22-2003, 11:31 AM

shinypenny wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mXtFb.14498$VB2.32202@attbi_s51>... But lots of things obviously _can't_ be measured with scientific instruments. For example, emotions are real, and can't be measured by the instruments of science. Hmmm.... I'm not so sure about that, Doug. Just saw a robotics exhibit. Ever hear of Kismet? It's a robot designed to sense and mimic human emotion. There are ways to "measure" emotion. For example, if you're sad, you tend to frown and your eyes droop. These physical indicators of emotion can be observed and measured. jen

I've heard of Kismet, but it was something in the musical vein. Was it an
opera? I can't remember now (seriously). Must be that aging thing....

Doug Anderson

12-22-2003, 01:22 PM

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mXtFb.14498$VB2.32202@attbi_s51>... But lots of things obviously _can't_ be measured with scientific instruments. For example, emotions are real, and can't be measured by the instruments of science. Hmmm.... I'm not so sure about that, Doug. Just saw a robotics exhibit. Ever hear of Kismet? It's a robot designed to sense and mimic human emotion. There are ways to "measure" emotion. For example, if you're sad, you tend to frown and your eyes droop. These physical indicators of emotion can be observed and measured.

Yeah, but this is all really crude stuff. It is slightly (just
slightly) less crud than "happy = smiling" and "sad = frowning."

It can't do anything with an insincere smile, or with an ironic
grimace, for example; stuff that we all do without even _thinking_
about!

Seeker

12-23-2003, 04:47 PM

In article <SNDFb.16301$xh2.6749@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
In some interesting experiments of a few years ago it was found out that complete fabrications are honestly "made up" to keep things "coherent". Our brains, can not stand to have things disorderly it seems.

Could you tell us more about that (like what the experimental set-up
was) or give a reference?

Ted

Seeker

12-23-2003, 04:47 PM

In article <e1EFb.176698$_M.805721@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is also one of our weaknesses, since we sometimes find patterns which don't exist, and sometimes see patterns where there are none.

That's why it's good to get a second opinion (at least).

Ted

urf

12-24-2003, 06:57 AM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:231220031847045594%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <SNDFb.16301$xh2.6749@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: In some interesting experiments of a few years ago it was found out that complete fabrications are honestly "made up" to keep things "coherent". Our brains, can not stand to have things disorderly it
seems. Could you tell us more about that (like what the experimental set-up was) or give a reference? Ted

The subject of the experiment was a middle-aged man who had suffered
a rare injury and as a result of a subsequent brain operation the subject
had the two hemispheres of the brain disconnected from each other.
As I said a rare situation. The subject recovered and seem normal in
everyday life with some exceptions.

The experiment was designed to give information to one hemisphere
of his brain and then to extract information from the other hemisphere.
The method was for the subject to observe a computer monitor while
having one eye covered. The monitor displayed various objects.
When the subject was asked to describe what he had just seen, he
made up elaborate stories complete with details that "filled in" the blanks
in his observations. When the subject was asked to draw what he had
seen using the opposing hand his drawings were fairly accurate.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/note_nf6.html

Doug Anderson

12-24-2003, 04:52 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <SNDFb.16301$xh2.6749@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: In some interesting experiments of a few years ago it was found out that complete fabrications are honestly "made up" to keep things "coherent". Our brains, can not stand to have things disorderly it seems. Could you tell us more about that (like what the experimental set-up was) or give a reference?

I can't quote whatever Urf is talking about, but it is well-known
among criminologists that "eye-witness" information is among the least
reliable. The New Yorker had an article about this sometime in the
last few years.

Doug Anderson

12-24-2003, 04:52 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <e1EFb.176698$_M.805721@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: This is also one of our weaknesses, since we sometimes find patterns which don't exist, and sometimes see patterns where there are none. That's why it's good to get a second opinion (at least).

Hmm. Did someone else see god in your kitchen with you?

WhansaMi

12-24-2003, 08:14 PM

>> Could you tell us more about that (like what the experimental set-up was) or give a reference?I can't quote whatever Urf is talking about, but it is well-knownamong criminologists that "eye-witness" information is among the leastreliable. The New Yorker had an article about this sometime in thelast few years.

An old classmate of mine did some research on this. She looked at regular
eyewitness testimony and hypnosis-induced eyewitness testimony. Both were
horrendously inaccurate. I remember reading it and concluding that, if I were
ever on a jury again, I would not be able to convict anyone on eyewitness
testimony alone.

Sheila

Sheila

Seeker

12-28-2003, 03:29 PM

In article <HZtFb.452844$275.1333340@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
But the first time you saw this man, it was someone you'd never seen before. How could you tell whether it was god or urf?

I guess it was like a deja vu experience -- I just *knew* it was God.
And, in retrospect, one interesting thing was that it was so natural
and expected -- like walking into an old friend that you haven't seen
in a long time, but in a perfectly natural and unsurprising setting.

Ted

Seeker

12-28-2003, 03:35 PM

In article <LxqGb.646381$Tr4.1657877@attbi_s03>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hmm. Did someone else see god in your kitchen with you?

No, but other people *have* "seen God" and those I've talked to share
a common certainty about our own experiences *and* of the veracity of
what the other is talking about -- even if what we've experienced isn't
the same. I do, however, have one friend who *did* have a very special
shared experience of God with a friend of hers, so there are times when
two people are, for whatever reason, allowed to experience the same
thing at the same time.

Ted

Doug Anderson

12-28-2003, 06:49 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <HZtFb.452844$275.1333340@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: But the first time you saw this man, it was someone you'd never seen before. How could you tell whether it was god or urf? I guess it was like a deja vu experience -- I just *knew* it was God. And, in retrospect, one interesting thing was that it was so natural and expected -- like walking into an old friend that you haven't seen in a long time, but in a perfectly natural and unsurprising setting.

OK. You suggested something else in the post I replied to.

Doug Anderson

12-28-2003, 06:51 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <LxqGb.646381$Tr4.1657877@attbi_s03>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Hmm. Did someone else see god in your kitchen with you? No, but other people *have* "seen God" and those I've talked to share a common certainty about our own experiences *and* of the veracity of what the other is talking about -- even if what we've experienced isn't the same. I do, however, have one friend who *did* have a very special shared experience of God with a friend of hers, so there are times when two people are, for whatever reason, allowed to experience the same thing at the same time.

Well, you deleted what I was responding to. You suggested the
necessity of a second opinion, but clearly you don't always feel that
necessity.

If one wanted a second opinion on the existence of god (which neither
you nor I feel any need for) it would be easy to get any second
opinion you desired, in any quantity. So I suggest that second
opinions aren't especially productive on religious matters.

Seeker

01-02-2004, 06:49 AM

In article <mXtFb.14498$VB2.32202@attbi_s51>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nothing left? Too solipsistic for me. Destroy _everyone's_ body and there is nothing left. Destroy one person's body and everyone else is left.

So you're one who believes in the "we live on in other people's
memories" version of eternal life, then?

Ted

Seeker

01-02-2004, 06:50 AM

In article <cb5b2d4e.0312220551.32562e57@posting.google.com>, Ralph
DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote:
The first thing to know about how the brain works is that sensory "experience" is constructed by the brain from incoming nerve impulses.

And if those nerve impulses involve sight, touch and hearing all at
once -- where might *they* be coming from?

Ted

geminii2

01-02-2004, 11:22 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<281220031735384939%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <LxqGb.646381$Tr4.1657877@attbi_s03>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Hmm. Did someone else see god in your kitchen with you? No, but other people *have* "seen God" and those I've talked to share a common certainty about our own experiences *and* of the veracity of what the other is talking about -- even if what we've experienced isn't the same. I do, however, have one friend who *did* have a very special shared experience of God with a friend of hers, so there are times when two people are, for whatever reason, allowed to experience the same thing at the same time. Ted

When two people have "a very special shared experience with
God" it is referred to by many as an "orgasm". From my own personal
standpoint that is when I have come closest to what my brain can
interpret as a God or a Supreme Being communicating to me in a very
pure and complete manner.
Hope you get some of that kind of godliness in the new year so
you won't feel the need to spend so much time convincing others of
your visions.
G2

Ralph DuBose

01-02-2004, 12:43 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:<020120040850461824%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>... In article <cb5b2d4e.0312220551.32562e57@posting.google.com>, Ralph DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote: The first thing to know about how the brain works is that sensory "experience" is constructed by the brain from incoming nerve impulses. And if those nerve impulses involve sight, touch and hearing all at once -- where might *they* be coming from? Ted

My point was that sensory experience of the type that enters
consciousness is only rarely unmediated by interpretation and context.
I mean, if you grab a hot peice of metal you will feel pain and let
go. But this sort of response could be observed of even very simple
animals and most plants (over time).
Sensory experience of a more complex sort -- and interpreting the
action and meaning of social interaction is, I beleave, among the most
complex-- is more a matter of us experiencing what our brains make of
the actual sensory inputs rather than the inputs themselves.
For example, the raw sensory data coming from a movie screen is, in
visual terms, a flat 2 dimensional reflection off of a peice of
concrete. Yet, very often, what we experience at the movies is real
enough to elicit a strong emotional reaction, even actual tears, etc.
So what is it that we are responding to? Is it real or not? Should we
say that it is either real or we are insane?
One way thru this is to embrace the notion that many things which
are themselves rather insubstantial can nonetheless remind of us of
things which are quite real and important. Like music. Music is, from
a reductionist viewpoint, just sound waves bouncing on your eardrums.
But when it is really working for us, we can experience profound
emotion and insight. What we experience is, in my opinion, extremely
real, but it was there inside us before we heard the music. The music
did not put something new into our situation. Music is just
sound-waves which impact all sorts of beings at the same time and
place with the same pattern of wave shape and frequency regardless of
whether or not there is any response produced.
If something happened to you in your kitchen that reminded you of
"God Within" I have no problem with that. I say go with it. But it
just muddies the water to try to use the experience as some kind of
argument for the ultimate validity of some abstract theological
edifice.

Doug Anderson

01-02-2004, 11:41 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <mXtFb.14498$VB2.32202@attbi_s51>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Nothing left? Too solipsistic for me. Destroy _everyone's_ body and there is nothing left. Destroy one person's body and everyone else is left. So you're one who believes in the "we live on in other people's memories" version of eternal life, then?

This has nothing to do with what I said. I just believe the world
continues after we die. It probably continues without us, but that is
just fine.

Seeker

01-04-2004, 09:18 PM

In article <HPhGb.4$lt.3@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
The subject of the experiment was a middle-aged man who had suffered a rare injury and as a result of a subsequent brain operation the subject had the two hemispheres of the brain disconnected from each other. As I said a rare situation. The subject recovered and seem normal in everyday life with some exceptions. The experiment was designed to give information to one hemisphere of his brain and then to extract information from the other hemisphere. The method was for the subject to observe a computer monitor while having one eye covered. The monitor displayed various objects. When the subject was asked to describe what he had just seen, he made up elaborate stories complete with details that "filled in" the blanks in his observations. When the subject was asked to draw what he had seen using the opposing hand his drawings were fairly accurate.

Thanks; seeing as the two halves of my brain seem somewhat connected I
guess I won't worry. Seriously, this all gets down to the question of
what it takes to accept the validity of another person's experience --
if accepting its validity means you might need to re-think your view of
the world, of course you're going to find reasons to doubt it. In the
end, I guess we're all from Missouri.

Ted

Doug Anderson

01-05-2004, 12:45 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <HPhGb.4$lt.3@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: The subject of the experiment was a middle-aged man who had suffered a rare injury and as a result of a subsequent brain operation the subject had the two hemispheres of the brain disconnected from each other. As I said a rare situation. The subject recovered and seem normal in everyday life with some exceptions. The experiment was designed to give information to one hemisphere of his brain and then to extract information from the other hemisphere. The method was for the subject to observe a computer monitor while having one eye covered. The monitor displayed various objects. When the subject was asked to describe what he had just seen, he made up elaborate stories complete with details that "filled in" the blanks in his observations. When the subject was asked to draw what he had seen using the opposing hand his drawings were fairly accurate. Thanks; seeing as the two halves of my brain seem somewhat connected I guess I won't worry.

Well, I don't know if one needs to "worry" about this in any case. We
all have experienced (I imagine) convincing memories which turn out to
be inaccurate. I think these may also be based on the brain "filling
in" even when the corpus callosum is uncut.

Criminologists have done research on how unreliable "eyewitness"
testimony is. Even when the witnesses are convinced they are being
completely accurate.
Seriously, this all gets down to the question of what it takes to accept the validity of another person's experience -- if accepting its validity means you might need to re-think your view of the world, of course you're going to find reasons to doubt it. In the end, I guess we're all from Missouri.

I think we all _ought_ to be. But sales of the Weekly World News
indicate that not all of us are. More's the pity.

urf

01-05-2004, 06:17 AM

On the contrary Ted. You seem to be one of the
most "disconnected" men in this forum.

No offense intended.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:040120042318091325%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <HPhGb.4$lt.3@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: The subject of the experiment was a middle-aged man who had suffered a rare injury and as a result of a subsequent brain operation the
subject had the two hemispheres of the brain disconnected from each other. As I said a rare situation. The subject recovered and seem normal in everyday life with some exceptions. The experiment was designed to give information to one hemisphere of his brain and then to extract information from the other hemisphere. The method was for the subject to observe a computer monitor while having one eye covered. The monitor displayed various objects. When the subject was asked to describe what he had just seen, he made up elaborate stories complete with details that "filled in" the
blanks in his observations. When the subject was asked to draw what he had seen using the opposing hand his drawings were fairly accurate. Thanks; seeing as the two halves of my brain seem somewhat connected I guess I won't worry. Seriously, this all gets down to the question of what it takes to accept the validity of another person's experience -- if accepting its validity means you might need to re-think your view of the world, of course you're going to find reasons to doubt it. In the end, I guess we're all from Missouri. Ted

urf

01-05-2004, 06:22 AM

While riding along with one of my co-workers we witnessed a
near accident. During the ensuing discussions we came to
understand how two people seeing the same thing at the
same time from the same place can witness two different
happenings. It is something we discuss even today, many years
later. It seems as though what we see is greatly influenced by
our mind and all that entails.

BTW, years later the incident continues to change for both of us.

Memory is also unreliable. Only video tape works.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6v9Kb.288118$_M.1535202@attbi_s54... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <HPhGb.4$lt.3@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: The subject of the experiment was a middle-aged man who had suffered a rare injury and as a result of a subsequent brain operation the
subject had the two hemispheres of the brain disconnected from each other. As I said a rare situation. The subject recovered and seem normal in everyday life with some exceptions. The experiment was designed to give information to one hemisphere of his brain and then to extract information from the other
hemisphere. The method was for the subject to observe a computer monitor while having one eye covered. The monitor displayed various objects. When the subject was asked to describe what he had just seen, he made up elaborate stories complete with details that "filled in" the
blanks in his observations. When the subject was asked to draw what he had seen using the opposing hand his drawings were fairly accurate. Thanks; seeing as the two halves of my brain seem somewhat connected I guess I won't worry. Well, I don't know if one needs to "worry" about this in any case. We all have experienced (I imagine) convincing memories which turn out to be inaccurate. I think these may also be based on the brain "filling in" even when the corpus callosum is uncut. Criminologists have done research on how unreliable "eyewitness" testimony is. Even when the witnesses are convinced they are being completely accurate. Seriously, this all gets down to the question of what it takes to accept the validity of another person's experience -- if accepting its validity means you might need to re-think your view of the world, of course you're going to find reasons to doubt it. In the end, I guess we're all from Missouri. I think we all _ought_ to be. But sales of the Weekly World News indicate that not all of us are. More's the pity.

Seeker

01-05-2004, 03:22 PM

In article <UleKb.1090$_o1.798@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
On the contrary Ted. You seem to be one of the most "disconnected" men in this forum.
LOL!
No offense intended.

None taken.

Ted

Seeker

01-05-2004, 06:44 PM

In article <cb5b2d4e.0401021243.10266d04@posting.google.com>, Ralph
DuBose <rdubose@pdq.net> wrote:
If something happened to you in your kitchen that reminded you of "God Within" I have no problem with that. I say go with it. But it just muddies the water to try to use the experience as some kind of argument for the ultimate validity of some abstract theological edifice.

It was nothing like that Ralph. But I don't want to go into any more
details, for reasons I'm not sure I could entirely articulate anyway.
I'm sorry I brought the topic up.
Sometimes I get carried away by the emotion of it without thinking it
through, what the next questions will be, and the limits of what I've
experienced I want to talk about.

Ted

Seeker

01-05-2004, 09:41 PM

In article <gFMHb.224817$_M.994282@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, you deleted what I was responding to. You suggested the necessity of a second opinion, but clearly you don't always feel that necessity. If one wanted a second opinion on the existence of god (which neither you nor I feel any need for) it would be easy to get any second opinion you desired, in any quantity. So I suggest that second opinions aren't especially productive on religious matters.

Both our original posts are long gone on my server (and I'm in too much
of a hurry to google them) but let me try to say more clearly what I
was probably trying to say when I used the phrase "second opinion." I
believe it is essential that *before* one acts in response to some kind
of spiritual experience -- whether it be a vision or a dream or hearing
a voice or writing something that seems to come from God in their
journal or finding some piece of scripture that stands out for them --
they should discuss it, and pray about it, with another person, or
group of people, who are experienced in and knowledgeable about such
events. Lacking a listener specifically knowledgeable about such
things, it's at least good to talk them over with someone who knows you
well. It is *not* a matter of finding someone whose opinion will
agree with yours, but someone who can critically, but with an open
mind, help you examine what's going on. It is indeed quite analagous
to seeking a "second opinion" in a medical matter -- you neither go out
and find somebody in the street or the bar who will agree (or disagree,
should you not like it) with your first diagnosis nor do you find a
doctor who is *not* skilled in the speciality involved or some
plausibly relevant one. (If your toe hurts an eye doctor couldn't give
you a useful second opinion on how to treat it -- although he *might*
have a an explanation for how you stubbed it!) Notice specifically
where I said "open mind" -- it is useless to discuss such experiences
with someone who does not accept the idea they may have a spiritual
rather than material cause.

Ted

Seeker

01-06-2004, 06:20 PM

In article <giBKb.749061$HS4.5870279@attbi_s01>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, if you are going to add conditions like not involving real tangible experiences (whatever that means, but maybe we can avoid that particular tangent), throw dreaming onto the end of my list.

If you add dreaming you've changed the frame of reference...

Ted

Doug Anderson

01-06-2004, 06:44 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <giBKb.749061$HS4.5870279@attbi_s01>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Well, if you are going to add conditions like not involving real tangible experiences (whatever that means, but maybe we can avoid that particular tangent), throw dreaming onto the end of my list. If you add dreaming you've changed the frame of reference...

I think _you_ changed the frame of reference. You asked
And if those nerve impulses involve sight, touch and hearing all at once -- where might *they* be coming from?

I gave some examples, and then you objected to them by pointing out
they came from tangible experiences. If we are going to include
intangible experiences, what is wrong with including dreaming? How
does that change the frame of reference?

Maybe it is a dualism problem again. You think sleep/wake is a
dualism, whereas I see a continuum.

Seeker

01-06-2004, 07:06 PM

In article <hoKKb.77807$I07.387350@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
I gave some examples, and then you objected to them by pointing out they came from tangible experiences. If we are going to include intangible experiences, what is wrong with including dreaming? How does that change the frame of reference?
I falsely generalized from your examples. Sorry.
Maybe it is a dualism problem again. You think sleep/wake is a dualism, whereas I see a continuum.

I suppose it is, but that's only confusing when talking about things
that happen when one is in a half-awake state. I have no doubt which
of my experiences occured when I was sound asleep and which when I was
wide awake -- there never was a question of any in-between state.

Ted

Doug Anderson

01-06-2004, 09:42 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <hoKKb.77807$I07.387350@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: I gave some examples, and then you objected to them by pointing out they came from tangible experiences. If we are going to include intangible experiences, what is wrong with including dreaming? How does that change the frame of reference? I falsely generalized from your examples. Sorry. Maybe it is a dualism problem again. You think sleep/wake is a dualism, whereas I see a continuum. I suppose it is, but that's only confusing when talking about things that happen when one is in a half-awake state. I have no doubt which of my experiences occured when I was sound asleep and which when I was wide awake -- there never was a question of any in-between state.

OK. My only point is that there are a number of things that fit your
criteria of involving sight, touch and hearing all at once. Some of
them are quite tangible, others are less so.

No need to multiply unnecessary entities to produce such experiences
either "tangible" or "intangible" (another duality that gives me pause).

Tai

01-06-2004, 10:22 PM

"Temily" <temilyp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CqFKb.80743$aT.64989@news-server.bigpond.net.au... Hi Tai, Just wanted to come in and say hi..and let you know everythings going beautifully here...i've met a wonderful man who i've been seeing since September and I feel he's the answer to my dreams :-)

That's good to hear, Temily, I hope things work out for you. :)

My ex has just gotten engaged (i'm having mixed feelings about that) and my kids are doing
really well..both now living up north...in the same town as their Dad.. How was your Christmas and New Year?

Excellent! How was your holiday?

We spent the holidays in NZ with my family and caught up with old friends
and other family members we haven't seen for years. The wee one developed an
ear infection in the early hours of the morning of Christmas Eve which meant
we had to find a medical clinic in the middle of the night (excellent and
fast and inexpensive service, btw) but he has been recovering well since
then, despite the perforation. <wince> I've only just now been able to get
back online since arriving home because of the mountains of laundry, bills,
letters, grocery shopping and general running around I've had to do. Plus
the cat ran away for a few hours after I sprung her from prison and a piece
of cornice fell off the ceiling while we were away - showering insulfluff,
plaster and cobwebs all over the room and furniture.

But we were pleased to be home. lol

Tai
(not too fond of air travel with a tired toddler who "wants to get out now"
every 30 mintutes. ;) )

Seeker

01-07-2004, 04:33 PM

In article <__MKb.79069$I07.399007@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
No need to multiply unnecessary entities to produce such experiences either "tangible" or "intangible" (another duality that gives me pause).

Well, then, how about "real" vs. "imaginary?"

Ted L.

Doug Anderson

01-07-2004, 06:39 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <__MKb.79069$I07.399007@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: No need to multiply unnecessary entities to produce such experiences either "tangible" or "intangible" (another duality that gives me pause). Well, then, how about "real" vs. "imaginary?"

How about it? Still plenty of such experiences available.

What is an "imaginary" experience? One you didn't really have, you
only imagine you did later? How would you tell the difference between
that and a "real" experience?

Seeker

01-08-2004, 03:10 PM

In article <cun08zyxhs.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
What is an "imaginary" experience? One you didn't really have, you only imagine you did later? How would you tell the difference between that and a "real" experience?

Is there some significance to your inclusion of the word "later?" All
the experiences of mine I have in mind were real at the moment they
happened -- and most I documented (wrote down or told to someone else)
in one form or another within days of when they occurred, so it isn't a
question of an inventive memory.

(Now, as to how one tells the difference between a real experience and
one created by misfiring brain cells, I'm not sure there are any
certain approaches because this is not something that happens in a
controllled laboratory setting.)

Ted

Doug Anderson

01-08-2004, 03:48 PM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <cun08zyxhs.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: What is an "imaginary" experience? One you didn't really have, you only imagine you did later? How would you tell the difference between that and a "real" experience? Is there some significance to your inclusion of the word "later?"

Not very much.
All the experiences of mine I have in mind were real at the moment they happened

Perhaps. But it no longer matters because now you are discussing
memories of those moments, which are exactly as real as your memory
is.
-- and most I documented (wrote down or told to someone else) in one form or another within days of when they occurred, so it isn't a question of an inventive memory.

Maybe you meant "invented memory." But I like "inventive memory"
better. We all have inventive memories. In fact we all have
memories that start inventing within minutes, if not seconds.
It is the way we try to keep the world straight. It involves
filtering out what we believe to be irrelevant, enhancing what we
believe to be relevant, and usually making coherent stories out of
what we perceive. And we do it constantly without thinking about it
or even being aware that we are doing it.

This faculty is part of our strength as an intelligent species (the
ability to generalize from limited data, and to weed out irrelevant
information) as well as part of our weakness (the tendency to
generalize from limited data and to dismiss information we perceive as
irrelevant).
(Now, as to how one tells the difference between a real experience and one created by misfiring brain cells, I'm not sure there are any certain approaches because this is not something that happens in a controllled laboratory setting.)

Right. Think about deja vu. My experience with deja vu usually tells
me that what is happening while I feel deja vu is not really a precise
repeat of something that happened before. But it sure feels that
way. So there is an example of something really interesting happening
in your brain which deludes you into thinking you are remembering
something as it happens. Or pick your favorite other explanation. In
any event it is something that feels real, but isn't.

urf

01-10-2004, 04:43 PM

take a look at this when you have time.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:070120041833209341%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <__MKb.79069$I07.399007@attbi_s53>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: No need to multiply unnecessary entities to produce such experiences either "tangible" or "intangible" (another duality that gives me pause). Well, then, how about "real" vs. "imaginary?" Ted L.

Jack C Lipton

01-10-2004, 07:24 PM

urf wrote: take a look at this when you have time. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/

Nice link. Thanks, Urf.

Anyway, it took me being curious enough to read into this
subject and I saw the below which got my attention:
Seeker wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: No need to multiply unnecessary entities to produce such experiences either "tangible" or "intangible" (another duality that gives me pause). Well, then, how about "real" vs. "imaginary?"

Ted, tangible is a "touchable" (i.e. "physical") asset; it
is easily tallied up on a spreadsheet and this is what is
driving the RIAA and MPAA crazy: they want all associated
IP (Intellectual Property) to become a tangible asset, with
values assigned in perpetuity.

Intangibles are, for a company, the more important assets
even though you can't lay your hands on them, things like
loyalty (customer *and* employee), imagination, creativity
and goodwill. These are intangibles that drive corporate
accountants batty.

Tangible vs. Intangible are *NOT* "Real" vs. "Imaginary";
both are quite real. It's just that the cold accountants
can't properly inventory the intangibles, but that doesn't
make them any less real. (A "brand name" is an intangible
asset.)

And I've *dealt* with corporate accountants, just not the
way I've wanted to. FEDEXing tacnukes provides a wonderful
little fantasy, of course.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Seeker

01-10-2004, 10:18 PM

In article <M5ydne3444fWAZ3dRVn-uQ@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
take a look at this when you have time. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/

Which part in particular? (I'm on a slow-speed dialup line.)
(Yes, I know about optical illusions, but that's not what we're talking
about.)

Ted

Seeker

01-10-2004, 10:22 PM

In article <slrnc01ggc.k0i.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C
Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
Ted, tangible is a "touchable" (i.e. "physical") asset; it is easily tallied up on a spreadsheet and this is what is driving the RIAA and MPAA crazy: they want all associated IP (Intellectual Property) to become a tangible asset, with values assigned in perpetuity.

Ah, but that's where the dispute lies -- some of my experiences of God
were tangible; Doug, among others, I'm sure too, does not believe
that's possible, that whatever I thought my senses of sight, hearing,
and touch were telling me couldn't possibly be true and so must be an
intangible product of my imagination.

Ted

Seeker

01-10-2004, 10:30 PM

In article <ewekua6ly0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps. But it no longer matters because now you are discussing memories of those moments, which are exactly as real as your memory is.

In short, you're saying *nothing* in our memories can be trusted -- the
entire past might well be a figment of our imagination.

Sorry. I can't rationally travel down that path very far.

I remember dreams, some more clearly than others, and, while I place
more importance on the ones I remember clearly than the others, I never
confuse them with memories of real (awake) events.

(As an aside, for the most part my memory of the world around me is not
very good -- it forgets an awful lot of detail, even whole stretches of
time when nothing interesting is happening. But there are a handful of
events that I *do* remember clearly, although not photographically, and
I'm sure I always will remember some essence of them.)

Ted

Jack C Lipton

01-11-2004, 01:49 AM

Seeker wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Ted, tangible is a "touchable" (i.e. "physical") asset; it is easily tallied up on a spreadsheet and this is what is driving the RIAA and MPAA crazy: they want all associated IP (Intellectual Property) to become a tangible asset, with values assigned in perpetuity. Ah, but that's where the dispute lies -- some of my experiences of God were tangible; Doug, among others, I'm sure too, does not believe that's possible, that whatever I thought my senses of sight, hearing, and touch were telling me couldn't possibly be true and so must be an intangible product of my imagination.

Experiences of intervention are usually visible to one who's
mind is open to the recognition. Usually any intervention
is recognizable and "true" only to the person experiencing
it; it's *exceptionally* subjective.

One's relationship with one's maker is a personal thing and
not explainable in an "objective" way. To the person who
has had the experience it is real albeit intangible but to
another it's unreal.

Some things cannot easily transcend subjectivity.

So I don't talk about mine. They have meaning to *me* and
I've already learned that they aren't transferable; my
soul is *mine* to worry about. It's not _my_ job to worry
about other people's.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Doug Anderson

01-11-2004, 08:10 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <slrnc01ggc.k0i.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote: Ted, tangible is a "touchable" (i.e. "physical") asset; it is easily tallied up on a spreadsheet and this is what is driving the RIAA and MPAA crazy: they want all associated IP (Intellectual Property) to become a tangible asset, with values assigned in perpetuity. Ah, but that's where the dispute lies -- some of my experiences of God were tangible; Doug, among others, I'm sure too, does not believe that's possible,

Not at all. I've said nothing of the sort.

But what I do believe is that at this point you are talking about your
_memories_ of those experiences. You having a _memory_ of a tangible
experience is not proof that you actually had such an experience, due
in part to the slippery nature of memory.

Furthermore, I believe that the actual line between tangible and
intangible is not as well demarcated as you seem to think. Especially
when talking about memories.
that whatever I thought my senses of sight, hearing, and touch were telling me couldn't possibly be true and so must be an intangible product of my immgination.

"Must?" No I wouldn't say that. "Could be?" Absolutely.

Doug Anderson

01-11-2004, 08:12 AM

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <ewekua6ly0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Perhaps. But it no longer matters because now you are discussing memories of those moments, which are exactly as real as your memory is. In short, you're saying *nothing* in our memories can be trusted -- the entire past might well be a figment of our imagination.

Pretty much, yeah.
Sorry. I can't rationally travel down that path very far.

Too bad then.
I remember dreams, some more clearly than others, and, while I place more importance on the ones I remember clearly than the others, I never confuse them with memories of real (awake) events.

At least you believe you never make that confusion.

Again, ever had deja vu?
(As an aside, for the most part my memory of the world around me is not very good -- it forgets an awful lot of detail, even whole stretches of time when nothing interesting is happening. But there are a handful of events that I *do* remember clearly, although not photographically, and I'm sure I always will remember some essence of them.)

It is worth thinking about what the difference is then, no?

Joy

01-11-2004, 08:42 AM

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:110120040022318967%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <slrnc01ggc.k0i.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote: Ted, tangible is a "touchable" (i.e. "physical") asset; it is easily tallied up on a spreadsheet and this is what is driving the RIAA and MPAA crazy: they want all associated IP (Intellectual Property) to become a tangible asset, with values assigned in perpetuity. Ah, but that's where the dispute lies -- some of my experiences of God were tangible; Doug, among others, I'm sure too, does not believe that's possible, that whatever I thought my senses of sight, hearing, and touch were telling me couldn't possibly be true and so must be an intangible product of my imagination.

Maybe we aren't using exactly the same definition of tangible. I think by
definition an experience, as you called it above, is NOT tangible. An
experience is not a "touchable thing" at all.

A tangible "touchable" asset, like a crane or a car or pile of widgets, is
something that can be touched by EVERYBODY, and the ability to touch them is
not transient (except in the case where an object is vaporized or something.
A transient experience in which you seem to be able to touch, see, or hear
but which nobody else can share is not strictly speaking tangible.