PDA

View Full Version : A Personal Reality check.....



korga@...
12-19-2000, 04:31 PM
okay here's an old post of mine....

--- in asc2k@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=5yjux3fx_famkmfzj6wbo6wbtgenliwbsuhvc4 uumr9bavqwpgyvmggysibbw9-j7h_inhhkkhy), korga@h... wrote:
> david wrote:
> > seriously, i'm too busy to keep doing this - but this was another warm-up!
>
> indeed you have been posting quite a bit lately david. i hope that doesn't
mean we will have to wait any longer
> for ciii. hehehehe. in that sense i don't want to keep engaging you on these
points but (maybe someone else
> will take up the reigns so you can get back to work....)
>
> >
> > dr. mandelker has a ph.d. in east-west psychology and spent many years
living in ashrams, touring through the "hot spots" and seeking enlightenment. he
is about as much of an expert on these systems of philosophy as was thomas
merton before him, truly a rare breed. and in his estimation, the law of one
series has fused all of these teachings together so clearly and cleanly that it
is "the single most important source of written teaching [he] has ever
encountered." as in - the best parts of all teachings that got these guys where
they are can all be found in the law of one series.
>
> this is not surprising but what does it mean? what are the 'best parts' of
these teachings? and what about those
> points which these teaching touch on which are not addressed by the law of
one? are these the 'bad parts'? that
> the law of one encompasses all of this, is that added merit to the law of one
teaching or the teachings which it
> encompases? these questions are fasisously (sp) serious.

*****forgive me if i'm wrong but this does relate directly to david's material
right? and it touches on something
mentioned in the shift of ages but by no means delt with in detail. why is this
inappropriate for discussion?*****

>
> >
> > i know i must sound like a broken record, but really it's quite simple. ra
gave us the blueprints for how each of these souls got where they got. it
involves clearing the blockages at each chakra level, which also corresponds to
that density and the karmic lessons for that density, until you get to a point
where you have some degree of balanced flow between all of them. once this is
open to at least a minimal degree, you have access to the violet-ray center
which can allow you to perform ascended feats. i'm not there yet though i can
tap into the akashics, heal people, effect electronics and get telekinetic
effects on smaller scales, usually spontaneously. and the psychic function is
certainly not lacking.
>
> please don't take this as an attack but i find it interesting that ra can
proclaim that which the majority of these
> souls adamently proclaim words cannot express. what you say sounds good and
logical and any other number of
> words which can describe it, but i'd be willing to bet if this was explained
to an ascended master as what they did
> to ascend, they would partake in the heartiest of laughter.

******this was not said to discredit anyone's work but merely an observation.
honestly. should this not be
addressed. fundamental to proposing that there is truth proclaimed in the ra
material we have to accept that the
truth can be proclaimed. in the history of ascension none have proclaimed this.
is this off topic?**********

>
> after this point david, i'm not sure if you are speaking directly to me or to
the forum as a whole.

was david talking about me here. i really don't know. does it apply to me.....
vaguely maybe but not really.

>
> >
> > now you get into the finesse of how do you face yourself on every level of
being: forgiveness of self, acceptance of self, direction of will, becoming the
creator. it all comes back to self-acceptance and forgiveness, and "service to
others becomes automatic at this point." best way to figure out where the
hotspots are? dreamwork. if you're not taking notes on the messages from your
higher self then you're not going to find out the problem anywhere near as
quickly, if at all. that's why i took the time to give everyone that checklist.
if you remember a dream and run it through the checklist, you will be able to
decode it, at least partially, if you follow the formula. but don't email me and
ask me to do it for you! this is your gig, and it don't mean a thing if it ain't
got that swing! and you've gotta put the grr in swinger, baby!
> >
> > most clients of mine need to hear messages that go all the way back to very
early in their life, and they have gone a lifetime without figuring it out. why
do you think they've got their astrology, their parents, their trends in life?
think that was all accidental or coincidental? not. i simply tie together their
stuff with mom, dad, relationships, jobs, prosperity attitude, body esteem, diet
and health and voila! suddenly it all fits together. my dream nails it, the
reading comes in to explain it. most of the time it's so obvious i really don't
even need to do the dream or reading. it's always the victim thing. whichever
parent victimized you the most shows you which aspect of yourself feels more
disconnected from god. and you'll discover that you're still making the same
mistakes.
> >
> > talk to mom if she's still around. forgive, accept, direct, become. love
yourself, nurture yourself. projection-wise, what comes out in this forum shows
the issues black and white. (dr. perls: "look to what the person accuses you of
saying, doing or being, and there you find the real subconscious issues with
self that they haven't faced and are still upset about.") someone wasn't
available enough.
> >
> > the reason why i'm here and doing what i'm doing is that at every stage of
the battle, i have faced myself, accepted, integrated and gone up the ladder.
lost 85 pounds, quit getting high, quit meat / sugar / fried food / dairy /
white flour / et cetera, exercised, stopped hating myself, stopped worrying,
meditated, studied, gained wisdom, directed creativity, practiced compassion and
service to others, made a commitment to dedicate my life to healing this planet
in the way i knew best. that's all that these other guys have done as well, and
everybody reaches their own notch. there's a good reading early along in the
archives on my site about jesus, saying that even though there was a plan, he
had to make conscious choices every step of the way to become that person.
> >
> > there's no shortcut - no etherium gold powder under the tongue that will
blast you into a higher level of being. get on your ****-wading boots and
prepare to unclog the cesspool of the monkey mind. i'm serious. slow down your
thoughts, get control of yourself, stop fluttering like a moth in front of a
lightbulb, never giving yourself a breather from chatter-chatter-chatter in the
head. how is this done? forgive, accept, direct, become. simple equation.
knowledge is easy, application is freakin' hard.
> >
> > you don't walk the path of the master by making one choice, one day - you
have to go back through your entire life, "defrag" every time where you didn't
make the optimal choices for your own highest good, relive those times in the
dream plane, "do the right thing," make the better choice, heal yourself, see
how it works in your life now, integrate the information, put your knowledge
into application, keep on working.
> >
> > it's not something easy - it is a constant process. the more you do this,
the more your life will be filled with joy, synchronicity, blessings, love,
wisdom, compassion, intelligence. i am so much smarter than i was before i went
on this diet and self-transformation path; there's a significant gain in iq
points, not to mention simple popularity because everybody wants to feel your
light. yes, you make tons of sacrifices that the ego doesn't like. you give up
all your addictions, habits, dietetic hangups, anger - "there is no such thing
as an emotionally charged situation. there are only two choices - to be of
service or to withdraw from the situation." i still blow that one sometimes.
> >
> > the tools for how to do all this are in every reading on the site! question
is: are you ready to do the homework on self instead of looking for the magic
panacea, the "one thing" that's suddenly going to make it all fit together?
> >
> > what feelings of limitation hold you back from being able to accept our
immediate future transformation? did god abandon you somewhere along the line?
is it "too fantastic" to be true? too "perfect?" do i need to beat you over the
head with science to convince you that this is really going to happen? well,
that's-a what i'm-a gonna do in the next book, if i haven't already done enough.
> >
> > if you're not studying the law of one or are not inclined to study it, (and
the study guide works best in conjunction with the books themselves, it is not a
stand-alone,) then you're not really going to understand why we keep wanting to
divert the flow of conversation back that way. all of your questions are
answered quite well therein.
> >
> > even the hard-nosed skeptic will have a very hard time denying the case that
there is to be some form of energetic shift on our planet in the near future
after reading c-iii. essentially, you cannot deny that it is happening now,
because it fits so perfectly with the physics. all that you can do is to quibble
about what it will actually "do" to each human being. and i feel that ra has
given us the best answer.
> >
>
> okay lets talk metaphor's here because what you detail here is absoultely
beautiful and really does get at the
> heart of the topic of ascension, but it is all but only a metaphor. the same
goes for all religious texts, all the ra
> material, all the seth material, all surgeon general warnings, and generally
speaking all things. that you can
> share this metaphor with others in such an eloquent manner is beautiful. that
it has done so much to improve
> the lives of yourself and others is equally beautiful. but if you or anyone
else regards it as more than a
> metaphor, then for all the beauty that is entailed within it, it has limited
your progress.
>
> what is the purpose of these metaphors? the diamond sutra states (watch out
i've started going to sources),
> "all things are caused by me - that i may attain liberation nirvana"
(paraphrased). let me explain this a bit
> further. as said by the buddha 'caused by me' does not mean me as an
individual nature but as entailing the
> whole of everything, without ego or individual identity. as such the cause
and the effect are the same. there is
> no doer separate from what is done. you are the metaphor you create. as you
refine that metaphor you refine
> yourself. refining that metaphor is broadening it to encompass all
causes/effects, or all things, which in turn
> broadens you to encompass all things until the ego is removed and one rejoins
all things, thereby attaining
> liberation or ascending. at the same time the diamond sutra would be careful
to express that this is not the way.
> the way is unreal. this is merely called the way.

*******again, i am hinting at the historical reference for ascension. we must
remember that ascension was
being taught way before the ra material. are these methods, which worked,
somehow now outdated because the
ra material is around. also jeremy, you'll notice that for me everything is a
metaphor. nothing is real it is
merely called real. that i say that the ra material and david's work are unreal
is not a criticism. the diamond
sutra is an amazing source for a better understanding of this. that something
is unreal does not diminish its
value because everything is unreal. what diminishes the value of the unreal is
when it is treated as real. this is
the metaphysics. the principles which exist before the principles. jeremy's
definition, 'the spiritual implications
of ascension' are not metaphysics, that's spirituality. to talk about
spirituality and call it metaphysics is a big
mistake. spirituality is nice but it is nowhere close to metaphysics.
metaphysics are complicated but rather
essential. how is it possible for you to know what you know, that is the
question of metaphysics, and though
david doesn't deal with it in his work, it affects everything which he presents.
by example, if everything is unreal
then when we speak of things we are speaking only of them nominally not as
reality. i think david's work even
touches on this a little bit in terms of the unreality of things. even ra
refers to our world as an illusion. talk
about the illusion sure but treat it as real and what and the illusion no longer
serves its purpose. is this off topic?
**************

>
> okay let me go one step further. ra is said to be a sixth density being. as
such ra is still able to interact with
> us here in the third density as individuals. but ra is not ra, ra is merely
called ra. the sixth density is not the
> sixth density it is merely called the sixth density. what is my point? where
while you may say that ra and the
> ra material capture the best parts of all the previous ascended souls, by no
means has ra or the material ra
> presents shown that ra has achieved any wisdom beyond them. taking the
diamond sutra alone, that ra still
> relates in an ego manner (no i am not saying ra is egotistical) shows his
limits. he professes this as being only
> a sixth density being which we think of as higher than us and thus the
metaphor presented (like most other
> metaphors of the kind) amaze us with what they entail. but fundamentally ra
and the law of one are not ra or
> the law of one they are merely called such. they are but the metaphors.
>
> the primary danger (this is not a scare tactic) of metaphors is the human
tendency to reify them. this is derrived
> from our desires to know. we yearn in some sense (even the most humble of us)
for some sense of certainty
> and search the metaphor for truth, turning those things which please us about
the metaphor into reality. what
> reification does however is begin slowing the metaphor down until it becomes
real. explained better, the truth is
> fluid and ever changing. metaphors flow with the truth and as such we are
able to learn from them. but if we reify
> the metaphors, they potentially can become real, solid, still and thus no
longer abide in the motion of truth.

*******this is the only mention previously of ra and again it isn't met as a
critique. i could have used myself
instead of ra or the bible instead of the law of one. my use of ra and the law
of one was to show that the
weren't exceptions to this. i am not arguing against the work here am
i?*************

>
> i wrote:
> > p.s. here's a question (okay 2): if there were no on-coming harvest
would you honestly be prepared to cultivate
> > mind, body and soul in preparation for ascension? was there ever a time
when there wasn't an on-coming
> > harvest to inspire human souls to pursue cultivation? refine your
metaphor.
>
> this is similar to a favorite question for me to pose to christians - could
you follow the teachings of christ if there
> were no jesus? and the follow-up - because the teachings of christ exist with
or without jesus.
>
> in the seven taoist masters (with regard to the second question), the queen of
all things proclaims that she will
> share the nectre of the sacred fruit on a specific day and that this fruit
would not bloom again for ten thousand
> years (again i am paraphrasing). tasting this fruit is the crowning of
immortality, but in order to taste one must
> have already ascended prior to the set date. is this not similar to the
coming of a harvest in which one must walk
> the ascension path to reap the benefits of the harvest? would not the coming
of this event be as critical to a
> taoist at the time as the on-coming harvest is to you?
>
> okay i've said enough for now, but there is more. i'm about to go on vacation
for a month so....
>
> incarnations
> korga

********* this last bit. forgive me if i'm wrong but this is very much on
topic. the parallel i've drawn between
the coming harvest and taoist immortality should really raise questions. have
we reified our unreality so much
that it superscedes what has happened before. and if what we are experiencing
now is parallel to that which has
happened in the past shouldn't we examine and learn from that past occurance?
how is this not on topic?
because david doesn't mention it? that's the exact reason why i've brought it
up because he doesn't mention it.
if you just read what is in david's material you might think that there are no
parallels in history for the coming
harvest. even just taking the lost mayans. what was their metaphor? i'm sorry
but i cannot see how this is not
on topic.**********

i've been avoiding saying this for quite some time because i don't want people
thinking that i'm the spoiler here,
but just because david has taken the time to put all of his material out there,
and because it encompasses so
much does not make his work untouchable. it has a lot of holes. i was very
happy in the beginning (before i
realized it was keeping him from writing ciii) to find out david would be
participating on this list because i
thought it would be a good opportunity to discuss with him the problems i had
with his work (not as a whole mind
you but points), that it might help him in the way reading his work has helped
me. david is not my saviour and
the law of one is not the holy word for me. does this mean i don't want to
discuss it absolutely not. i thought i
might be able to help david by bringing a metaphysical perspective into what he
discusses. this is seen as
attacking him. it's interesting to note that i've been called defensive despite
the fact that i've proposed nothing
to be defensive about. but the way you make it sound jeremy, if i'm not on the
same page as david this forum
is not for me. let us not put david and his work to high on a pedestal
otherwise they too may become real
(incidently another translation of real as i use it may be stagnant or
dogmatic). not to toot my own horn, but i
know quite a bit and have done extensive study on both metaphysics and the topic
of ascension throughout
known history. i will not pretend that this knowledge and the questions they
raise, are unimportant simply
because i've come to asc2k. instead i try to make sense of them and relate them
to others that they may too
think about how this relates to their metaphors. you tell me this is off topic.
the only way i can see what i have
said is off topic is if the topic of discussion, (david's work), is real. and i
reiterate another translation of real as i
mean it hear is stagnant or dogmatic.

incidently this is not a critique jeremy, but there is all this talk about the
others on this forum, but while there are
over sixty members yours is the only opinion besides david which i see outside
of a few other inquiries here and
there. what do the rest of you think. am i off topic. if so just say so and i
will shut up (incidently a week from
tommorow i will be gone anyway.... but i'll be back).

incarnations
korga

Jeremy Weiland
12-19-2000, 05:55 PM
i'm assuming that this is in response to the my reply to your e-mail (re:
laying down the mantle)...?

>*****forgive me if i'm wrong but this does relate directly to david's
material right? and it touches on something
>mentioned in the shift of ages but by no means delt with in detail. why is
this inappropriate for discussion?*****

it's not inappropriate for discussion. i'm sorry; i did not mean to reply
that every word that came from your e-mail address is off topic. i'm sorry
i came across that way. i was talking more about earlier posts that seemed
to only tangentally incorporate david's work while mostly bringing up other
thought systems. also trying to challenge ra, while perhaps acceptable, is
similar to trying to go to a christianity list and argue that god doesn't
exist. the reason it's similar is because it is our collective acceptance
and study of this material is what has brought us here on this list.

>******this was not said to discredit anyone's work but merely an
observation. honestly. should this not be
>addressed. fundamental to proposing that there is truth proclaimed in the
ra material we have to accept that the
>truth can be proclaimed. in the history of ascension none have proclaimed
this. is this off topic?**********

perhaps it should be addressed. is the asc2k list the best place to address
it? i don't know. but i wanted to at least make people ask themselves the
question.

>was david talking about me here. i really don't know. does it apply to
me..... vaguely maybe but not really.

i'm sure he was in a sense, but the concepts apply to all.

>*******again, i am hinting at the historical reference for ascension. we
must remember that ascension was
>being taught way before the ra material. are these methods, which worked,
somehow now outdated because the
>ra material is around. also jeremy, you'll notice that for me

yes, to a certain extent. the christian metaphor of ascension (the
apocalypse, etc.) is to a certain extent, outdated information. just as a
different paradigm of the solar system replaced the earth centered one, a
new paradigm of ascension would, neccessarily, override the preexisting one.
obviously, you're bringing in ideas about ascension that are certainly
valid, but because we're not on the same page, we're not going to be able to
have a conversation. maybe if i read the works that you have, and you read
the works that i have, we can have terms to discuss with. and whether any
truth can be proclaimed in a text is a topic that, although very
interesting, should not be dwelled on. this should not be a list on
epistemology (so i say)!

everything is a metaphor. nothing is real it is
>merely called real. that i say that the ra material and david's work are
unreal is not a criticism. the diamond

understood. please try to understand that not everyone is coming from the
same place you are, simply because they are on the list.

>principles. jeremy's definition, 'the spiritual implications
>of ascension' are not metaphysics, that's spirituality. to talk about
spirituality and call it metaphysics is a big
>mistake. spirituality is nice but it is nowhere close to

no, i just did not understand what *you* meant by metaphysics. i certainly
regard spirituality as something separate.

metaphysics. metaphysics are complicated but rather
>essential. how is it possible for you to know what you know, that is the
question of metaphysics, and though
>david doesn't deal with it in his work, it affects everything which he
presents. by example, if everything is unreal

but you could bring these philosophical questions up about anything!
it's not really an idea that is specific to david's work - and the fact that
you want to dwell on this philosophizing is disturbing to me since that is
not why i came to this list.
now, korga, this is just my humble opinion. i am by no means laying
down the law on what you can and cannot write; only david can do that. i
would only suggest that if you're going to post on philosophy, for example
whether truth can fundamentally be communicated in a work such as the ra
material, you're asking a question that is not really an asc2k question, but
rather an epistemological question. you would be better served to post on a
philosophy list where people will gladly debate this with you.

>then when we speak of things we are speaking only of them nominally not as
reality. i think david's work even
>touches on this a little bit in terms of the unreality of things. even ra
refers to our world as an illusion. talk
>about the illusion sure but treat it as real and what and the illusion no
longer serves its purpose. is this off topic?

perhaps it isn't, but you weren't talking about it in the context of the ra
material. thus, we had no basis on which to discuss this with you. does
that make sense?

>*******this is the only mention previously of ra and again it isn't met as
a critique. i could have used myself
>instead of ra or the bible instead of the law of one. my use of ra and the
law of one was to show that the
>weren't exceptions to this. i am not arguing against the work here am
i?*************

no, you're making an observation about how you percieve we are treating
the work. i'm not going to try to speak for david, but i consider ra not
the end-all be-all, but rather simply the best resource we have. not that
there aren't other good sources, but ra seems to be the most consistent.
it's not reifying it to acknowledge that or believe that; it's simply where
you are on your path that that should be the thought system that best
catalizes you. reifying it would be to reject any other system simply
*because* it isn't the ra material. by contrast, david is merely saying
that, in his experience, he has found the ra material to be the best. you
don't have to believe that. but that's pretty much where we're at at asc2k.
if you're not there, then fine, you're not bad, but there's very little here
for you, and instead of arguing the point with us, you might further your
studies better by joining with those that agree more with you.

>> years (again i am paraphrasing). tasting this fruit is the crowning of
immortality, but in order to taste one must
>> have already ascended prior to the set date. is this not similar to the
coming of a harvest in which one must walk
>> the ascension path to reap the benefits of the harvest? would not the
coming of this event be as critical to a
>> taoist at the time as the on-coming harvest is to you?

yes, and there may be much that we agree on about the oncoming event, we
just define it slightly differently. and that's ok; we'll both get where we
need to go. but it's not neccessary to shove the differences between us and
the taoists in one anothers face, but rather acknowledge them and move
forward. this is what strikes me as "off topic" about it - the way it sets
up the question. it shouldn't be "which version is wrong and which is
right", but rather, "look there are two similar events that two different
groups are expecting. that's encouraging to us - the consistency of
expectations between unrelated groups means that we're probably on the right
track." does that make sense?

>i've been avoiding saying this for quite some time because i don't want
people thinking that i'm the spoiler here,
>but just because david has taken the time to put all of his material out
there, and because it encompasses so
>much does not make his work untouchable. it has a lot of

nobody is saying the work is not untouchable. but the problems you bring
up, like the epistemological problems and everything, are not really
specific problems with his work. just because he doesn't explain the
thought system the way you think it should be explained... i mean, it seems
like there's only a difference on emphasis between what you're saying and
the asc2k material. by all means, bring up problems that you have with the
material, but frame them as questions, not critiques, especially when you
haven't even read all the material.

holes. i was very happy in the beginning (before i
>realized it was keeping him from writing ciii) to find out david would be
participating on this list because i
>thought it would be a good opportunity to discuss with him the problems i
had with his work (not as a whole mind
>you but points), that it might help him in the way reading his work has
helped me. david is not my saviour and
>the law of one is not the holy word for me. does this mean i don't want to
discuss it absolutely not. i thought i
>might be able to help david by bringing a metaphysical perspective into
what he discusses. this is seen as
>attacking him. it's interesting to note that i've been called

perhaps david sees this as attacking him, but i don't. but it is kind
of insulting to critique a work when you haven't read it all the way
through. i say this with love, korga, i'm not trying to demonize you. i
want us to resolve these issues.

defensive despite the fact that i've proposed nothing
>to be defensive about. but the way you make it sound jeremy, if i'm not on
the same page as david this forum
>is not for me. let us not put david and his work to high on a

what are we to talk about, where are we all coming from, what is the
common terms that we have to facilitate discussion, if not david's work? i
haven't read all the stuff that you have, but if you can frame the topic in
you post in terms of how it relates to asc2k material, i am much better able
to understand it, and to be able to intelligently respond.
you seem like you're viewing this as a witch hunt... i see this as
merely a dispute about emphasis.

pedestal otherwise they too may become real
>(incidently another translation of real as i use it may be stagnant or
dogmatic). not to toot my own horn, but i
>know quite a bit and have done extensive study on both metaphysics and the
topic of ascension throughout
>known history. i will not pretend that this knowledge and the questions
they raise, are unimportant simply
>because i've come to asc2k. instead i try to make sense of

<sigh> yes, obviously, nobody is asking you to pretend its not important.
but this is not korga2k mailing list - it's asc2k. it is not a forum for
you to enlighten us about all your ideas about what truth is - nor did i
come here to hear about the thought system of some guy out in cyberspace.
if you post about stuff, it should relate to the ideas on asc2k. of course
you will have original information and perspective to bring to the table,
just make sure that everyone wants to hear about it i.e. that it's something
we can make sense of.

>incidently this is not a critique jeremy, but there is all this talk about
the others on this forum, but while there are
>over sixty members yours is the only opinion besides david which i see
outside of a few other inquiries here and
>there. what do the rest of you think. am i off topic. if so just say so
and i will shut up (incidently a week from
>tommorow i will be gone anyway.... but i'll be back).

you're absolutely right; we don't hear from the others. i think
probably the others are either turned off by this whole debate or they are
ignoring these long emails :-)
but if you're still reading this far, what do you think? is korga
on/off topic? are we making too big a deal out of this? does the ra
material really exist? is david really spending all the time he says he's
working eating ho-hos and watching the transformers movie over and over
again? write us, at asc2k@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=1p0qbhvrpkpynfuivnnmc-dw7ysucgah48xjzfqtmmj65pkqzu3glbumndp3m23gykkqam4o m7d_iw) . remember, we want to hear from
you.
have a great vacation, korga.
love and light,
jeremy

Whistling Song Dog
12-19-2000, 05:59 PM
korga, you said:

> incidently this is not a critique jeremy, but there is all this
talk about the others on this forum, but while there are
> over sixty members yours is the only opinion besides david which i
see outside of a few other inquiries here and
> there. what do the rest of you think. am i off topic. if so just
say so and i will shut up (incidently a week from
> tommorow i will be gone anyway.... but i'll be back).
>
> incarnations
> korga


ok, as one of the "other 60" let me put in my two cents, or at least
let you know where i'm coming from.
i see semantics being discussed here, as much as the topic, but
that's still good as far as i'm concerned. it gets my frog brain
twirling pretty good. and if i may speak for some of the 60, we're
not as far along the path as you are, so all discussions are eagerly
absorbed, and hopefully digested for use in our daily frog lives.
even if your discussions do sometimes get a little heated, that's
good. it's expanding my conciousness like never before in this life.
from my viewpoint, you're thinking a lot of the same concepts, but
using different words to get your points across. (words are merely
labels for us 3d beings to communicate with, right? even if they
aren't real, they're all we have right now.)
when you get metaphysical on us, you kind of lose me for a while. i
guess i didn't inhale enough in the 60's. let's say that i'm
positive that my iq is lower than yours (no argument there, huh?),
but i get along quite well with my common sense. that's probably one
of the reasons i just sit back and enjoy the banter of all your
postings. me getting in the middle of some of your discussions would
be totally pointless. (btw, there's no doubt in my mind that i could
trash all of you put together in a spelling bee!)
as far as the learning curve goes, we're still on the steep incline,
while the three or four of you are already on the gentle slope,
sledding for home.

please, keep up the good work. we lower life forms enjoy it
immensely.

peace (not peaches)

steve (tongue somewhat in cheek) foeller.

Jeremy Weiland
12-19-2000, 06:06 PM
ok, steve, so here's the score so far:

korga: 1
jeremy: 0

c'mon y'all... let's tally em up...

<in case you didn't know this is completely kidding here>

>when you get metaphysical on us, you kind of lose me for a while. i
>guess i didn't inhale enough in the 60's. let's say that i'm
>positive that my iq is lower than yours (no argument there, huh?),
>but i get along quite well with my common sense. that's probably one
>of the reasons i just sit back and enjoy the banter of all your
>postings. me getting in the middle of some of your discussions would
>be totally pointless. (btw, there's no doubt in my mind that i

but the thing is, you're *supposed* to be getting in on the conversations,
y'know what i mean.

oh and bring that spelling bee on baby. i no i didn't gradjuate high school
for nuttin.... :-)

>as far as the learning curve goes, we're still on the steep incline,
>while the three or four of you are already on the gentle slope,
>sledding for home.

i hope you weren't including me in that... that fact the i can cyberbicker
like this is probably a spiritual detrement to me...
hmmm, i should think about that...

>please, keep up the good work. we lower life forms enjoy it
>immensely.

ok, now i think i'm gonna go barf...

>steve (tongue somewhat in cheek) foeller.

somewhat? how about "cemented in cheek"...

take care buddy,
jeremy