Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Might and Right

Expand Messages
  • banderaken
    Hi Bob, You said it all. Nothing I can add. IMO of course. Ken
    Message 1 of 54 , Dec 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Bob,
      You said it all. Nothing I can add.

      IMO of course.

      Ken

      --- In GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com, old bob <bbferrier@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I like "perhaps makes correct" better than "might makes right". Correct and right seem to be so dynamic. Seems like a lot of people are constantly changing their minds.
      >
      > I like that "might be" stipulation on what I think something is because I have sensory devises to identify a few of its properties. What it is and what I characterize it to be are not the same. It is what it is even if I don't observe it. My knowledge of its properties are only illusions between my ears. That information that I am aware of might exist in many other places for all I know, but I don't know about them all yet.
      >
      > We are getting some pretty sophisticated sensory devices lately. We can empart enough energy on an atom to that it flies apart and we have instruments to detect the energy that dissipates from the event. We have reefers that can cool substances to the point they offer no resistance to electron flow. Matter used to be taught as frozen, liquid or gaseous depending on temperature. Now we are into super-cooled and plasma states. I guess we are learning more and more about physical characteristics of molecular structures all the time. It wasn't a few centuries ago that the state of physics thought that anything requiring a microscope to view was called a wee little animal (atoms and molecules). Astronomical devices are even finding that there are almost as many galaxies in the universe as there are dollars in our national debt. Were getting there. lol
      >
      > old bob
      > --.-
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- On Wed, 11/30/11, James <p3nndrag0n@...> wrote:
      >
      > From: James <p3nndrag0n@...>
      > Subject: Re: [GnosticThought] Re: Might and Right
      > To: GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 4:26 PM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > MM Howard
      >
      >
      >
      > Since matter is actually condensed energy and energy always exists
      >
      > then matter is not created but becomes, i.e. energy becomes
      >
      > condensed and we perceive matter to be created ;) Bit like steam
      >
      > condensing and thing water is created as a rough analogy
      >
      >
      >
      > MP
      >
      > p3nn
      >
      > > Sam asks,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > "Have you considered that what-is* might become...
      >
      > > rather than create?"
      >
      > >
      >
      > > How is this not a futile exercise in semantics? How does something
      >
      > become
      >
      > > without being created? The only thing not created would be the
      >
      > cosmic
      >
      > > plenum, vacuum from which all began.
      >
      > > In closing, Sam stated,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > "Such... may well be the latest phantasy,
      >
      > > but soon... a new hypothesis there'll be."
      >
      > >
      >
      > > I am reluctant to consider 'what is' to be a phantasy. Reality can only
      >
      > be
      >
      > > found in the conscousness of I AM, found only in the eternal
      >
      > moment of
      >
      > > Now. Everything else is an illusion fashioned within the canyons of
      >
      > our
      >
      > > minds, designed to placate the demands of our ego and 'lower self'.
      >
      > > Care to share your new 'hypothesis'?
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Namaste', ....howard
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > ________________________________
      >
      > > From: sam <townley7@...>
      >
      > > To: GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 8:15 PM
      >
      > > Subject: Re: [GnosticThought] Re: Might and Right
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:02:02 -0800 (PST)
      >
      > > Howard Nylander <uziyah@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > <snip>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > I like to refer to this Cosmic Plenum of creation as Father God
      >
      > > > because I like to focus on all the positive manifestations seen
      >
      > > > in all of creation.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > <snip>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Have you considered that what-is* might become...
      >
      > > rather than create?
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > By the way, energy constitutes less than five percent of our
      >
      > > > physical cosmos. The rest is that of dark energy and dark matter
      >
      > > > which does not exist, ...yet influences that which does.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Such... may well be the latest phantasy,
      >
      > > but soon... a new hypothesis there'll be.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > imo,
      >
      > > magellan*
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • banderaken
      Hi Bob, You said it all. Nothing I can add. IMO of course. Ken
      Message 54 of 54 , Dec 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Bob,
        You said it all. Nothing I can add.

        IMO of course.

        Ken

        --- In GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com, old bob <bbferrier@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > I like "perhaps makes correct" better than "might makes right". Correct and right seem to be so dynamic. Seems like a lot of people are constantly changing their minds.
        >
        > I like that "might be" stipulation on what I think something is because I have sensory devises to identify a few of its properties. What it is and what I characterize it to be are not the same. It is what it is even if I don't observe it. My knowledge of its properties are only illusions between my ears. That information that I am aware of might exist in many other places for all I know, but I don't know about them all yet.
        >
        > We are getting some pretty sophisticated sensory devices lately. We can empart enough energy on an atom to that it flies apart and we have instruments to detect the energy that dissipates from the event. We have reefers that can cool substances to the point they offer no resistance to electron flow. Matter used to be taught as frozen, liquid or gaseous depending on temperature. Now we are into super-cooled and plasma states. I guess we are learning more and more about physical characteristics of molecular structures all the time. It wasn't a few centuries ago that the state of physics thought that anything requiring a microscope to view was called a wee little animal (atoms and molecules). Astronomical devices are even finding that there are almost as many galaxies in the universe as there are dollars in our national debt. Were getting there. lol
        >
        > old bob
        > --.-
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- On Wed, 11/30/11, James <p3nndrag0n@...> wrote:
        >
        > From: James <p3nndrag0n@...>
        > Subject: Re: [GnosticThought] Re: Might and Right
        > To: GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 4:26 PM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > MM Howard
        >
        >
        >
        > Since matter is actually condensed energy and energy always exists
        >
        > then matter is not created but becomes, i.e. energy becomes
        >
        > condensed and we perceive matter to be created ;) Bit like steam
        >
        > condensing and thing water is created as a rough analogy
        >
        >
        >
        > MP
        >
        > p3nn
        >
        > > Sam asks,
        >
        > >
        >
        > > "Have you considered that what-is* might become...
        >
        > > rather than create?"
        >
        > >
        >
        > > How is this not a futile exercise in semantics? How does something
        >
        > become
        >
        > > without being created? The only thing not created would be the
        >
        > cosmic
        >
        > > plenum, vacuum from which all began.
        >
        > > In closing, Sam stated,
        >
        > >
        >
        > > "Such... may well be the latest phantasy,
        >
        > > but soon... a new hypothesis there'll be."
        >
        > >
        >
        > > I am reluctant to consider 'what is' to be a phantasy. Reality can only
        >
        > be
        >
        > > found in the conscousness of I AM, found only in the eternal
        >
        > moment of
        >
        > > Now. Everything else is an illusion fashioned within the canyons of
        >
        > our
        >
        > > minds, designed to placate the demands of our ego and 'lower self'.
        >
        > > Care to share your new 'hypothesis'?
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Namaste', ....howard
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > ________________________________
        >
        > > From: sam <townley7@...>
        >
        > > To: GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 8:15 PM
        >
        > > Subject: Re: [GnosticThought] Re: Might and Right
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:02:02 -0800 (PST)
        >
        > > Howard Nylander <uziyah@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > <snip>
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > I like to refer to this Cosmic Plenum of creation as Father God
        >
        > > > because I like to focus on all the positive manifestations seen
        >
        > > > in all of creation.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > <snip>
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Have you considered that what-is* might become...
        >
        > > rather than create?
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > By the way, energy constitutes less than five percent of our
        >
        > > > physical cosmos. The rest is that of dark energy and dark matter
        >
        > > > which does not exist, ...yet influences that which does.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Such... may well be the latest phantasy,
        >
        > > but soon... a new hypothesis there'll be.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > imo,
        >
        > > magellan*
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.