ZPC
12-18-2004, 01:07 PM
zee here: here's a document i wrote
faith in the source versus faith in the means
that is posted at ecophysics.
here are the links to it (it is also included without formatting below):
web location: http://www.smartgroups.com/vault/ecophysics/public/
or file location:
<a href="http://www.smartgroups.com/vault/ecophysics/public/faith%5fin%5fthe%5fsource%5fmay%5f2%2d03.doc?actio n=get">http://www.smartgroups.com/vault/ecophysics/public/faith%5fin%5fthe%5fsource%5fm\
ay%5f2%2d03.doc?action=get</a>
faith in the source versus faith in the means
as john lilly, m.d., the psychiatrist says,
"anything you believe either is true
or tends to become true, as a result of having believed it . . . "
he amends or qualifies his statement by the terms:
"in the realm of the mind".
it is possible to regard everything
as being in the realm of the mind.
does that statement mean that one must simply
believe something to be true in order to make it so?
two factors must be taken into account:
1) become true in what reality, in what range of reality,
or to what extent?
2) energy deployed in pattern is manifestation,
but there is a factor of dynamics and durability.
these two factors require considerable explanation.
there is a teaching:
"lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,
where moths corrupt and thieves break through and steal."
"rather, lay up for yourself treasures in heaven." jesus
dare one play that teaching off against another,
from another culture and another time?
"there is no greater sin than desire
no greater curse than discontent
no greater misfortune
than wanting something for one's self." lao tzu
i would commend:
have what you use and use what you have.
need is related to function. need is contrasted to desire.
further, have what you use, when and as you need it.
in some sense, you have nothing.
in some sense, you have everything.
the closure of the self and the augmentation of the closed self,
creates fear and ignorance.
the defining of the self commences a kind
and a degree of closure.
the defining of the self commences a fixation of the self.
there is a kind of question that can be applied
with respect to any definition, including the definition of self:
at least? or only?
what are we or what are we becoming? at least? or only?
how can we make provision for our evolution?
we need to define ourselves in open terms.
we are a nexus, an entity, with a function.
we want to be useful. we want to become more useful.
we want to become a universal functionary.
we are a processing centre.
form is an artefact of process. we want to be a source of flow.
the forms we create are designs, patterns, and plans.
they are to be given, as formulas, useful to all.
we are creators, being created.
we are situated, with a delay in consequences
to grant us free will.
the delay in consequences is generated
by the sequence providing functions of dimensions,
more particularly, the dimensions of space and time.
we occupy an obstructed reality.
the obstructions provide developing creators time
to refine and to edit the designs, patterns and plans we create.
all that exists is nothing, but charges in motion.
these charges in motion are not free-standing particles.
there is no such thing as one and the same increment of energy
which constitutes a charge
at any two adjacent increments of time.
energy flows into and out of every charge.
where does it flow from? where does it flow to?
what are the patterns, which determine this flow?
what are the forces, which affect this flow?
the mind affects the flow.
there is a field, affected by the mind,
from which we harvest our experience.
relax! clear the mind! imagine!
relax, because you want the flow to be unforced.
clear the mind, because you want the process to be uncluttered,
without confusion, free of mingled influences.
imagine, because images relate more, to more, more extensively
and more appropriately.
there is, everywhere present, a matrix.
this matrix has potential.
this is a matrix of receptivity (orthic time)
conductivity (orthic space) and
frequency (orthic motion).
the mind, when and as it imagines, acts as a catalyst.
it brings the reactants into proximity in a manifesting field.
this matrix is the source.
ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒ ã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â© 2003, 2004, ecohealth / z. p. charnoe
(document #20, ecophysics)
orig.:may 2, 2003 edit: may 22, 2003
www.smartgroups.com/groups/ecophysics
http://ecophysics.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk
anaclysm@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=lwajniwqqgmbhajtfficfkz1zl51a497j9yrft 0xfo3xntdvhqb5qseprse_yi_9we2h7iaa-jjckzz28g) ecohealth@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=66fzm7ezgfteglw0nkww45zyedkaa1u-yvfegccmexwvn_denroge3gyo531anzz43py_chkmt7k7rv9) sjgray@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=sepw5b5zbu70knw66svqb2x40p7szxxyc7zpml 60ztkhlwv34xw-aexe4vbr3grvklceiiiuuitapmvbfw)
[version with formatting intact available at ecophysics in 'files']
[non-text portions of this message have been removed]
faith in the source versus faith in the means
that is posted at ecophysics.
here are the links to it (it is also included without formatting below):
web location: http://www.smartgroups.com/vault/ecophysics/public/
or file location:
<a href="http://www.smartgroups.com/vault/ecophysics/public/faith%5fin%5fthe%5fsource%5fmay%5f2%2d03.doc?actio n=get">http://www.smartgroups.com/vault/ecophysics/public/faith%5fin%5fthe%5fsource%5fm\
ay%5f2%2d03.doc?action=get</a>
faith in the source versus faith in the means
as john lilly, m.d., the psychiatrist says,
"anything you believe either is true
or tends to become true, as a result of having believed it . . . "
he amends or qualifies his statement by the terms:
"in the realm of the mind".
it is possible to regard everything
as being in the realm of the mind.
does that statement mean that one must simply
believe something to be true in order to make it so?
two factors must be taken into account:
1) become true in what reality, in what range of reality,
or to what extent?
2) energy deployed in pattern is manifestation,
but there is a factor of dynamics and durability.
these two factors require considerable explanation.
there is a teaching:
"lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,
where moths corrupt and thieves break through and steal."
"rather, lay up for yourself treasures in heaven." jesus
dare one play that teaching off against another,
from another culture and another time?
"there is no greater sin than desire
no greater curse than discontent
no greater misfortune
than wanting something for one's self." lao tzu
i would commend:
have what you use and use what you have.
need is related to function. need is contrasted to desire.
further, have what you use, when and as you need it.
in some sense, you have nothing.
in some sense, you have everything.
the closure of the self and the augmentation of the closed self,
creates fear and ignorance.
the defining of the self commences a kind
and a degree of closure.
the defining of the self commences a fixation of the self.
there is a kind of question that can be applied
with respect to any definition, including the definition of self:
at least? or only?
what are we or what are we becoming? at least? or only?
how can we make provision for our evolution?
we need to define ourselves in open terms.
we are a nexus, an entity, with a function.
we want to be useful. we want to become more useful.
we want to become a universal functionary.
we are a processing centre.
form is an artefact of process. we want to be a source of flow.
the forms we create are designs, patterns, and plans.
they are to be given, as formulas, useful to all.
we are creators, being created.
we are situated, with a delay in consequences
to grant us free will.
the delay in consequences is generated
by the sequence providing functions of dimensions,
more particularly, the dimensions of space and time.
we occupy an obstructed reality.
the obstructions provide developing creators time
to refine and to edit the designs, patterns and plans we create.
all that exists is nothing, but charges in motion.
these charges in motion are not free-standing particles.
there is no such thing as one and the same increment of energy
which constitutes a charge
at any two adjacent increments of time.
energy flows into and out of every charge.
where does it flow from? where does it flow to?
what are the patterns, which determine this flow?
what are the forces, which affect this flow?
the mind affects the flow.
there is a field, affected by the mind,
from which we harvest our experience.
relax! clear the mind! imagine!
relax, because you want the flow to be unforced.
clear the mind, because you want the process to be uncluttered,
without confusion, free of mingled influences.
imagine, because images relate more, to more, more extensively
and more appropriately.
there is, everywhere present, a matrix.
this matrix has potential.
this is a matrix of receptivity (orthic time)
conductivity (orthic space) and
frequency (orthic motion).
the mind, when and as it imagines, acts as a catalyst.
it brings the reactants into proximity in a manifesting field.
this matrix is the source.
ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒ ã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â© 2003, 2004, ecohealth / z. p. charnoe
(document #20, ecophysics)
orig.:may 2, 2003 edit: may 22, 2003
www.smartgroups.com/groups/ecophysics
http://ecophysics.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk
anaclysm@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=lwajniwqqgmbhajtfficfkz1zl51a497j9yrft 0xfo3xntdvhqb5qseprse_yi_9we2h7iaa-jjckzz28g) ecohealth@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=66fzm7ezgfteglw0nkww45zyedkaa1u-yvfegccmexwvn_denroge3gyo531anzz43py_chkmt7k7rv9) sjgray@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=sepw5b5zbu70knw66svqb2x40p7szxxyc7zpml 60ztkhlwv34xw-aexe4vbr3grvklceiiiuuitapmvbfw)
[version with formatting intact available at ecophysics in 'files']
[non-text portions of this message have been removed]