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

Re: The Decisive Mutation

Expand Messages
  • sorenmad
    ... continually ... as ... of a ... my ... in ... my ... SK s ... on ... often ... in ... worm ... be a ... please ... leap. ... 199- ... was ... the ... me
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 1, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
      wrote:
      > Hey, ABBADON, shades of the past cool the brow. You have asked, both
      > directly and indirectly, questions I thoroughly enjoy wrapping the
      > answer-mind around, especially the one about the leap/transition
      > complex. This is something I really want to explore as slowly as
      > possible. You have mentioned a 'letting go' and SK speaks
      continually
      > to being nothing before God. Professor Ferreira speaks of the leap
      as
      > a letting go. Let go and Let God. I think of all of that in terms
      of a
      > release. There is a release, whereas before there was a binding. In
      my
      > way of thinking, this is a pluralistic matter, so I am looking for a
      > single door, or one needle's eye, through which one, in passing,
      > describes it in their own personal terms. If it is a release, a
      > letting go, and how can it be said that it is not a letting go when
      in
      > personal terms it reflects as such, then what else can be let go of
      > but one's sense of personal? The difficulty of my position is that
      my
      > reading of it is also personal. What was the name of that worm?
      >
      > Have I complicated that beyond reason? I read what you are saying
      > about the shift from the words to a picture and I find myself saying
      > that I know what you are talking about. I do not know that I do, but
      > what you say grabs me in that way. There is a different order of
      > grasping things between the words and the picture. I would further
      > agree that your self-description of the process is much more closely
      > aligned to SK's meaning than mine, yours probably going as far as
      SK's
      > Religiousness B, which I can only make a vague pass at.
      >
      > As I think about my vague pass at that incarnation scene, there is,
      on
      > my part, a sense of contacting a mystery because of its location in
      > "my" world. In coming out of the notion of inwardness and back into
      > the world that one's toe gets stubbed in, that inwardness that is
      > solely mine transforms itself to the outward as an enclosure. I
      often
      > viscerally sense the movement from one order to another in my body's
      > world, as it were.
      >
      > My personal description of the leap/transition complex is captured
      in
      > the de-tail I offered. You have a hunch that the leap and the
      > transition are not the same thing, the transition being one face of
      > the leap. I cannot say that you are wrong. I don't know. My only
      > rebuttal is that there is only one transition and that the only
      > difference is in its expression. I feel that I am correct, but the
      > only correctness to be found in that is that that is what I feel.
      > Someone who feels the opposite has that same truth, so again the
      worm
      > eats itself.
      >
      > May the force be with you! And hearing from you again in a formal
      > setting is music to my ears.
      >
      > Apollyon7676 (the double spirit),
      > Yet another pit-man
      >
      >
      > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "sorenmad" <sorenmad@y...>
      wrote:
      > > Hey Willy, Mike from the pit here. I was just browsing around to
      > > figure out how to spell "innconsummerate" and thought this might
      be a
      > > better place to start than starting a new thread. So if I am
      > > repeating anything that may have already formed from this post
      please
      > > forgive me.
      > >
      > > I guess a good place to begin may be with the "tranny" and the
      leap.
      > > I have a hunch that the tranny is addressed in the infamous page
      199-
      > > 200 of "Works of Love" (Inluded at the end of this post) I have
      > > another hunch that this tranny is a one time tranny, which in my
      > > particular case came about while reading the book of genesis. It
      was
      > > a sense of letting the words dissappear into a picture, because
      the
      > > words did not make sense otherwise. Amyway, this letting go let
      me
      > > start a process which led to my trusting of certain historical
      > > documents, esp. Johns gospel, to the point where I accepted that
      God
      > > had become a man. No need for inlallibility or inneracy, just an
      ear
      > > for the spirit speaking through not only the scriptures, but in
      other
      > > ways that cannot be shared without making myself look rather
      insane
      > > to the un-initiated, and perhaps to the initiated in Christ as
      well.
      > >
      > > Im wondering how this tranition fits into your scheme of things.
      > > From what I see here it is likely something to do with talking to
      > > yourself! but what i am trying to figure out most of all is the
      > > consumerability or inconsumerability of our views, asumming i am
      > > making enough sense for you to answer.
      > >
      > > What I think I may be seeing, is that you can have your way
      without
      > > my way, but I can have my way with your way, which may b K's way.
      > >
      > > One problem is that I cannot tell if you are deluded or not,
      because
      > > I don't follow what you are saying so well. Perhaps you could
      break
      > > the ice by letting my know if the leap is related to the de-
      tailing
      > > process mentioned in "another doodle" (I ahve a hunch the leap
      and
      > > the transition are not the same thing. ie.- the tranition may be
      a
      > > leap, but not the only leap.
      > >
      > > the forever falling poster previously known as ABADDON, -Mike
      > >
      > > ps. this was posted without profreading for fear I would become
      self-
      > > concious and not post at all.
      > >
      > > "All human language about the spiritual, yes, even the divine
      > > language of Holy Scriptures, is essentially transferred or
      > > metaphorical language. This is quite in order or corresponds to
      the
      > > order of things and of existence, since even though man is spirit
      > > from the moment of birth he first becomes conscious as spirit
      later,
      > > and therefore prior to this he has lived for a certain time
      within
      > > sensuous-psychic categories. The first portion of life shall not,
      > > however, be cast aside when the spirit awakens, any more than the
      > > awakening of spirit announces itself in sensuous or sensuous-
      psychic
      > > modes in contrast to the sensuous or sensuous-psychic. The first
      > > portion is taken over by spirit, and, thus used, thus laid at the
      > > base, it becomes transferred. Therefore the spiritual man and the
      > > sensuous-psychic man say the same thing in a sense, and yet there
      > > remains an infinite difference between what they say, since the
      > > latter does not suspect the secret of transferred language, even
      > > though he uses the same words, but not metaphorically. There is a
      > > world of difference between the two; the one has made a
      transition or
      > > has let himself be led over to the other side; whereas the other
      has
      > > remained on this side. Yet there is something binding which they
      have
      > > in common - they both use the same language. One in whom the
      spirit
      > > is awakened does not therefore leave the visible world. Although
      now
      > > conscious of himself as spirit, he is still continually in the
      world
      > > of the visible and is himself sensuously visible; likewise he
      also
      > > remains in the language, except that it is transferred.
      Transferred
      > > language is, then, not a brand new language; it is rather the
      > > language already at hand. Just as spirit is invisible, so also is
      its
      > > language a secret, and the secret rests precisely in this that it
      > > uses the same language as the simple man and the child but uses
      it as
      > > transferred. Thereby the spirit denies (but not in a sensuous or
      > > sensuous-psychic manner) that it is the sensuous or sensuous-
      psychic.
      > > The distinction is by no means directly apparent. Therefore we
      quite
      > > rightly regard emphasis upon a directly apparent distinction as a
      > > sign of false spirituality―which is mere sensuousness; whereas
      the
      > > presence of spirit is the quiet, whispering secret of transferred
      > > language - audible to him who has an ear to hear." (WL, Hong, pp.
      199-
      > > 200)
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown"
      <wilbro99@y...>
      > > wrote:
      > > > Passion, Rickets, and thoughts and actions before and after a
      > > tranny?
      > > > I notice that Jim has responded that he requires no counter-
      spin to
      > > > the spin presently spinning, i.e., his spin. I am more than
      willing
      > > to
      > > > let that be the case until such time that he sees fit to resume
      the
      > > > spin-fest.
      > > >
      > > > I'll answer the specifics generally and let it go at that. Do I
      see
      > > > the Kgd-ian transition as "something that happens to someone,
      > > > something that happens irrespective of the person's spiritual
      > > efforts
      > > > and spiritual state"? Since I see the transition as
      conditional, the
      > > > leap requiring a platform from which it may rise, the notion of
      fate
      > > > does not adhere to my thoughts on this matter. There is a
      necessary
      > > > ripeness and that ripeness has a quality of the whole about
      it.
      > > SK's
      > > > Purity of Heart is a guide to the setting of the whole quality.
      Some
      > > > of his Upbuilding Discourses address the setting of the whole
      > > quality
      > > > in a more personal way by referring to the setting of it in
      personal
      > > > terms. Perhaps, if it be your desire, we could get into the
      > > difference
      > > > between passion and passion, passion being a collectiveness
      > > regardless
      > > > of which sphere it is found in.
      > > >
      > > > That ripeness may come about in another way. Suppose someone
      who has
      > > > plied the road of division for years, where each goal achieved
      was
      > > > found not to be the goal that would bring the seeking to an
      end, the
      > > > goal being peace of mind, suddenly has an insight into that act
      as a
      > > > whole? This comprehensive seeing would allow a reflection upon
      the
      > > act
      > > > as a whole. If someone who is unaware of beating their head
      against
      > > > the wall continues the act long enough to see the connection
      between
      > > > the pain and the act, that insight into the whole act sets the
      > > > platform from which the leap may rise; in this case, the
      negation of
      > > > the act.
      > > >
      > > > I would say that in Kierkegaardian terms, the act that must be
      seen
      > > in
      > > > its entirety is the act of the temporal sense of self using the
      > > future
      > > > to mold the past to fit the self it wants to reflect upon. SK,
      in
      > > many
      > > > places, refers to the future as the problem to be solved. Since
      the
      > > > future is the problem, any problem that requires the future to
      be
      > > > solved is a chimera. If the temporal sense of self itself
      requires a
      > > > future to maintain itself, then we have the self as the
      problem, and
      > > > we have the SK connection. I may say more about this later, the
      self
      > > > as the problem instead of the self having a problem, that is.
      > > >
      > > > However it come about that the future is exorcised, by
      following
      > > SK's
      > > > guide in Purity of Heart, or an insight into its falseness in
      the
      > > > matter of self-change, or collecting oneself in the reflection
      upon
      > > > oneself that includes the one doing the reflecting, that
      temporal
      > > self
      > > > bereft of its future will show its true nature: emptiness, or
      want,
      > > in
      > > > want of being filled. There being no platform from which to
      leap,
      > > the
      > > > leap turns into a fall, a negation, and the tranny is revealed.
      In
      > > > other words, when the problem of the future is solved, it, and
      the
      > > > self it supports, comes to an end.
      > > >
      > > > You want that I should get personal? Of course, what I just
      said
      > > above
      > > > will resonate with a seeker as saying that there is no future
      and
      > > that
      > > > leaves them with no hope, no way out, and they will scream
      bloody
      > > > murder that I am denying life. I say that there is life after
      death,
      > > > this particular death; and that, in fact, one finally starts
      living.
      > > > Ok, I preach.
      > > >
      > > > Now, there is another solution to the problem that could be no
      > > > solution; that being the giving up of one's future to the hands
      of
      > > > another. If that other is God, the temporal self finds the
      fullness
      > > in
      > > > being filled with God. The difficulty here is that any doubt
      about
      > > the
      > > > filling brings the pain back. So that solution depends upon
      holding
      > > > fast to the answer, and defending it against all who would
      deprive
      > > the
      > > > holder of the holding. This is where Old Nick comes in. And
      this is
      > > > where willyb checks out; I could go on and on laying all of
      this
      > > out,
      > > > but this pile of words should suffice as an answer, or if not
      that,
      > > at
      > > > the least compost, right Ricky?
      > > >
      > > > Of course, it goes without saying that anyone who has ideas,
      either
      > > > pro or con, or from outside the arena, may add their voice to
      this
      > > > thread. Who knows, there might be a 'Daniel' out there who can
      beard
      > > > this particular lion in its den. Jump in; there is nothing to
      lose
      > > > except the thought of losing. ----willy_nilly
    • sorenmad
      -im really out to lunch now, I made a post explaining how I thought everthing I wrote on the last post got lost, and I cant find that post! ill try again
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 1, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        -im really out to lunch now, I made a post explaining how I thought
        everthing I wrote on the last post got lost, and I cant find that
        post! ill try again tomorrow, lunch is getting cold


        abaddon



        -- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "sorenmad" <sorenmad@y...>
        wrote:
        > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown"
        <wilbro99@y...>
        > wrote:
        > > Hey, ABBADON, shades of the past cool the brow. You have asked,
        both
        > > directly and indirectly, questions I thoroughly enjoy wrapping the
        > > answer-mind around, especially the one about the leap/transition
        > > complex. This is something I really want to explore as slowly as
        > > possible. You have mentioned a 'letting go' and SK speaks
        > continually
        > > to being nothing before God. Professor Ferreira speaks of the
        leap
        > as
        > > a letting go. Let go and Let God. I think of all of that in terms
        > of a
        > > release. There is a release, whereas before there was a binding.
        In
        > my
        > > way of thinking, this is a pluralistic matter, so I am looking
        for a
        > > single door, or one needle's eye, through which one, in passing,
        > > describes it in their own personal terms. If it is a release, a
        > > letting go, and how can it be said that it is not a letting go
        when
        > in
        > > personal terms it reflects as such, then what else can be let go
        of
        > > but one's sense of personal? The difficulty of my position is
        that
        > my
        > > reading of it is also personal. What was the name of that worm?
        > >
        > > Have I complicated that beyond reason? I read what you are saying
        > > about the shift from the words to a picture and I find myself
        saying
        > > that I know what you are talking about. I do not know that I do,
        but
        > > what you say grabs me in that way. There is a different order of
        > > grasping things between the words and the picture. I would further
        > > agree that your self-description of the process is much more
        closely
        > > aligned to SK's meaning than mine, yours probably going as far as
        > SK's
        > > Religiousness B, which I can only make a vague pass at.
        > >
        > > As I think about my vague pass at that incarnation scene, there
        is,
        > on
        > > my part, a sense of contacting a mystery because of its location
        in
        > > "my" world. In coming out of the notion of inwardness and back
        into
        > > the world that one's toe gets stubbed in, that inwardness that is
        > > solely mine transforms itself to the outward as an enclosure. I
        > often
        > > viscerally sense the movement from one order to another in my
        body's
        > > world, as it were.
        > >
        > > My personal description of the leap/transition complex is
        captured
        > in
        > > the de-tail I offered. You have a hunch that the leap and the
        > > transition are not the same thing, the transition being one face
        of
        > > the leap. I cannot say that you are wrong. I don't know. My only
        > > rebuttal is that there is only one transition and that the only
        > > difference is in its expression. I feel that I am correct, but the
        > > only correctness to be found in that is that that is what I feel.
        > > Someone who feels the opposite has that same truth, so again the
        > worm
        > > eats itself.
        > >
        > > May the force be with you! And hearing from you again in a formal
        > > setting is music to my ears.
        > >
        > > Apollyon7676 (the double spirit),
        > > Yet another pit-man
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "sorenmad"
        <sorenmad@y...>
        > wrote:
        > > > Hey Willy, Mike from the pit here. I was just browsing around
        to
        > > > figure out how to spell "innconsummerate" and thought this
        might
        > be a
        > > > better place to start than starting a new thread. So if I am
        > > > repeating anything that may have already formed from this post
        > please
        > > > forgive me.
        > > >
        > > > I guess a good place to begin may be with the "tranny" and the
        > leap.
        > > > I have a hunch that the tranny is addressed in the infamous
        page
        > 199-
        > > > 200 of "Works of Love" (Inluded at the end of this post) I
        have
        > > > another hunch that this tranny is a one time tranny, which in
        my
        > > > particular case came about while reading the book of genesis.
        It
        > was
        > > > a sense of letting the words dissappear into a picture, because
        > the
        > > > words did not make sense otherwise. Amyway, this letting go
        let
        > me
        > > > start a process which led to my trusting of certain historical
        > > > documents, esp. Johns gospel, to the point where I accepted
        that
        > God
        > > > had become a man. No need for inlallibility or inneracy, just
        an
        > ear
        > > > for the spirit speaking through not only the scriptures, but in
        > other
        > > > ways that cannot be shared without making myself look rather
        > insane
        > > > to the un-initiated, and perhaps to the initiated in Christ as
        > well.
        > > >
        > > > Im wondering how this tranition fits into your scheme of
        things.
        > > > From what I see here it is likely something to do with talking
        to
        > > > yourself! but what i am trying to figure out most of all is
        the
        > > > consumerability or inconsumerability of our views, asumming i
        am
        > > > making enough sense for you to answer.
        > > >
        > > > What I think I may be seeing, is that you can have your way
        > without
        > > > my way, but I can have my way with your way, which may b K's
        way.
        > > >
        > > > One problem is that I cannot tell if you are deluded or not,
        > because
        > > > I don't follow what you are saying so well. Perhaps you could
        > break
        > > > the ice by letting my know if the leap is related to the de-
        > tailing
        > > > process mentioned in "another doodle" (I ahve a hunch the leap
        > and
        > > > the transition are not the same thing. ie.- the tranition may
        be
        > a
        > > > leap, but not the only leap.
        > > >
        > > > the forever falling poster previously known as ABADDON, -Mike
        > > >
        > > > ps. this was posted without profreading for fear I would become
        > self-
        > > > concious and not post at all.
        > > >
        > > > "All human language about the spiritual, yes, even the divine
        > > > language of Holy Scriptures, is essentially transferred or
        > > > metaphorical language. This is quite in order or corresponds to
        > the
        > > > order of things and of existence, since even though man is
        spirit
        > > > from the moment of birth he first becomes conscious as spirit
        > later,
        > > > and therefore prior to this he has lived for a certain time
        > within
        > > > sensuous-psychic categories. The first portion of life shall
        not,
        > > > however, be cast aside when the spirit awakens, any more than
        the
        > > > awakening of spirit announces itself in sensuous or sensuous-
        > psychic
        > > > modes in contrast to the sensuous or sensuous-psychic. The
        first
        > > > portion is taken over by spirit, and, thus used, thus laid at
        the
        > > > base, it becomes transferred. Therefore the spiritual man and
        the
        > > > sensuous-psychic man say the same thing in a sense, and yet
        there
        > > > remains an infinite difference between what they say, since the
        > > > latter does not suspect the secret of transferred language,
        even
        > > > though he uses the same words, but not metaphorically. There is
        a
        > > > world of difference between the two; the one has made a
        > transition or
        > > > has let himself be led over to the other side; whereas the
        other
        > has
        > > > remained on this side. Yet there is something binding which
        they
        > have
        > > > in common - they both use the same language. One in whom the
        > spirit
        > > > is awakened does not therefore leave the visible world.
        Although
        > now
        > > > conscious of himself as spirit, he is still continually in the
        > world
        > > > of the visible and is himself sensuously visible; likewise he
        > also
        > > > remains in the language, except that it is transferred.
        > Transferred
        > > > language is, then, not a brand new language; it is rather the
        > > > language already at hand. Just as spirit is invisible, so also
        is
        > its
        > > > language a secret, and the secret rests precisely in this that
        it
        > > > uses the same language as the simple man and the child but uses
        > it as
        > > > transferred. Thereby the spirit denies (but not in a sensuous
        or
        > > > sensuous-psychic manner) that it is the sensuous or sensuous-
        > psychic.
        > > > The distinction is by no means directly apparent. Therefore we
        > quite
        > > > rightly regard emphasis upon a directly apparent distinction as
        a
        > > > sign of false spirituality―which is mere sensuousness;
        whereas
        > the
        > > > presence of spirit is the quiet, whispering secret of
        transferred
        > > > language - audible to him who has an ear to hear." (WL, Hong,
        pp.
        > 199-
        > > > 200)
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown"
        > <wilbro99@y...>
        > > > wrote:
        > > > > Passion, Rickets, and thoughts and actions before and after a
        > > > tranny?
        > > > > I notice that Jim has responded that he requires no counter-
        > spin to
        > > > > the spin presently spinning, i.e., his spin. I am more than
        > willing
        > > > to
        > > > > let that be the case until such time that he sees fit to
        resume
        > the
        > > > > spin-fest.
        > > > >
        > > > > I'll answer the specifics generally and let it go at that. Do
        I
        > see
        > > > > the Kgd-ian transition as "something that happens to someone,
        > > > > something that happens irrespective of the person's spiritual
        > > > efforts
        > > > > and spiritual state"? Since I see the transition as
        > conditional, the
        > > > > leap requiring a platform from which it may rise, the notion
        of
        > fate
        > > > > does not adhere to my thoughts on this matter. There is a
        > necessary
        > > > > ripeness and that ripeness has a quality of the whole about
        > it.
        > > > SK's
        > > > > Purity of Heart is a guide to the setting of the whole
        quality.
        > Some
        > > > > of his Upbuilding Discourses address the setting of the whole
        > > > quality
        > > > > in a more personal way by referring to the setting of it in
        > personal
        > > > > terms. Perhaps, if it be your desire, we could get into the
        > > > difference
        > > > > between passion and passion, passion being a collectiveness
        > > > regardless
        > > > > of which sphere it is found in.
        > > > >
        > > > > That ripeness may come about in another way. Suppose someone
        > who has
        > > > > plied the road of division for years, where each goal
        achieved
        > was
        > > > > found not to be the goal that would bring the seeking to an
        > end, the
        > > > > goal being peace of mind, suddenly has an insight into that
        act
        > as a
        > > > > whole? This comprehensive seeing would allow a reflection
        upon
        > the
        > > > act
        > > > > as a whole. If someone who is unaware of beating their head
        > against
        > > > > the wall continues the act long enough to see the connection
        > between
        > > > > the pain and the act, that insight into the whole act sets the
        > > > > platform from which the leap may rise; in this case, the
        > negation of
        > > > > the act.
        > > > >
        > > > > I would say that in Kierkegaardian terms, the act that must
        be
        > seen
        > > > in
        > > > > its entirety is the act of the temporal sense of self using
        the
        > > > future
        > > > > to mold the past to fit the self it wants to reflect upon.
        SK,
        > in
        > > > many
        > > > > places, refers to the future as the problem to be solved.
        Since
        > the
        > > > > future is the problem, any problem that requires the future
        to
        > be
        > > > > solved is a chimera. If the temporal sense of self itself
        > requires a
        > > > > future to maintain itself, then we have the self as the
        > problem, and
        > > > > we have the SK connection. I may say more about this later,
        the
        > self
        > > > > as the problem instead of the self having a problem, that is.
        > > > >
        > > > > However it come about that the future is exorcised, by
        > following
        > > > SK's
        > > > > guide in Purity of Heart, or an insight into its falseness in
        > the
        > > > > matter of self-change, or collecting oneself in the
        reflection
        > upon
        > > > > oneself that includes the one doing the reflecting, that
        > temporal
        > > > self
        > > > > bereft of its future will show its true nature: emptiness, or
        > want,
        > > > in
        > > > > want of being filled. There being no platform from which to
        > leap,
        > > > the
        > > > > leap turns into a fall, a negation, and the tranny is
        revealed.
        > In
        > > > > other words, when the problem of the future is solved, it,
        and
        > the
        > > > > self it supports, comes to an end.
        > > > >
        > > > > You want that I should get personal? Of course, what I just
        > said
        > > > above
        > > > > will resonate with a seeker as saying that there is no future
        > and
        > > > that
        > > > > leaves them with no hope, no way out, and they will scream
        > bloody
        > > > > murder that I am denying life. I say that there is life after
        > death,
        > > > > this particular death; and that, in fact, one finally starts
        > living.
        > > > > Ok, I preach.
        > > > >
        > > > > Now, there is another solution to the problem that could be no
        > > > > solution; that being the giving up of one's future to the
        hands
        > of
        > > > > another. If that other is God, the temporal self finds the
        > fullness
        > > > in
        > > > > being filled with God. The difficulty here is that any doubt
        > about
        > > > the
        > > > > filling brings the pain back. So that solution depends upon
        > holding
        > > > > fast to the answer, and defending it against all who would
        > deprive
        > > > the
        > > > > holder of the holding. This is where Old Nick comes in. And
        > this is
        > > > > where willyb checks out; I could go on and on laying all of
        > this
        > > > out,
        > > > > but this pile of words should suffice as an answer, or if not
        > that,
        > > > at
        > > > > the least compost, right Ricky?
        > > > >
        > > > > Of course, it goes without saying that anyone who has ideas,
        > either
        > > > > pro or con, or from outside the arena, may add their voice to
        > this
        > > > > thread. Who knows, there might be a 'Daniel' out there who
        can
        > beard
        > > > > this particular lion in its den. Jump in; there is nothing to
        > lose
        > > > > except the thought of losing. ----willy_nilly
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.