Comment by Kirby Urner on 1st mo. 27, 2016 at 2:37am

Greetings Keith --

I like that you chose "insouciant" as it's not so much used as "detached" as in "free from attachments".  You've given the matter some thought and picked a better berry.

A calm and breezy relationship with one's world will sound like an oasis, a sanctuary, to some ears, some kind of Nirvana.  To be anchored in outward forms is to endure outrageous fortune and suffer hardships as their victim. 

The outward-anchored individual is more likely to take things hard.  One's life is far from breezy. 

Might heeding the call of some Presence bring with it a sense of calm, and less tortuous mental suffering?  That seems to be the promise, and so one expectantly waits for the call to heed.

Probably why I sound tentative as to how I rank on this scale is I'm still trying to figure out if we share external criteria, whereby an outward-anchored versus a Presence-anchored demeanor might be discerned.  I have many thoughts on the matter.

Like if I start with the characters in Winnie the Pooh (the kids' novel), may I decide with any justification that one character is more Presence-imbued than another?  What about Eeyore, the sad-eyed donkey? Or Owl?  Or pick some other fictional character.  How easy is it to decide, if at all, their level of detachment and/or liberation from Outward Affairs?
Also, your opening essay began with a spin on "Professor" as one who tries to proselytize / recruit for a specific program, based in some economics or religious ideology.  Perhaps William Rogers places a similar spin on that word, whereas the Foxonians actually call themselves "Professors" because of institutions they have built (such as George Fox University, not far from here).

When I first read your post I found myself thinking of both:

(A) Gothic cathedrals and
(B) the project to land humans on the moon (Project Apollo)

Would only Professors care enough about worldly stuff to want a moon landing in their own lifetimes? 

Is it characteristic of the Presence-minded that their freedom from the Big Dream means they don't participate that much in it? 

Can someone Presence-minded be an astronaut, or is that too worldly an occupation by definition?  Such queries dog my investigations.

I'll cop to being more than a tad professorial myself and am actually used to students calling me "professor" in the course of a business day.  My students might use English as a second language and addressing me with that honorific just seems the polite way to start the communication, even though I do not necessarily meet the criteria some would apply for the "Professor" labeling. 

I'd want at least an honorary PhD or two before I added any Dr. to my resume, out of deference how that game is played, even while admitting  to an arguably Quaker insouciance regarding titles and academia.

Anyway, if I'm really that close to being a Professor, then how can I escape being a creature of outward forms?  I think I'm trapped here, by the special case language in play.

Regarding corner cases, I was thinking how a level of detachment may ironically result in added responsibilities within the outward world.  Consider the movie Being There with Peter Sellers or the book by Jerzy Kosinski ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There ).

The main character's insouciance leads to his being noticed among the politically connected, as these outwardly focused types sensed the peace of an Inner Light, and are attracted to it, through this saintly man. The Peter Sellers character becomes an almost religious figure owing to his breezy attitudes. 

Whereas Chance (the hero) hasn't a mean bone in his body, one might imagine a different character with a strong sense of Divine Presence to effectively out-organize a group of less detached, more outwardly-anchored.   In other words, might not a conscience imbued with a sense of Presence be excited to do great good in the world, and for that reason join in a project to build a Gothic cathedral, or shoot for the moon? 

Finally:  could our big dreamer become corrupted and villainous?  I think we've seen this in the movies.  We have a possibility of relapse which your response also alludes to: "Although, when not watchful, I do step into it sometimes."  Amen to that.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 1st mo. 28, 2016 at 5:29pm

Kirby, your last past reminded me of some words from Rogers. He writes:

It is well known that a day dawned and the Lord reached into many of our consciences and we came to believe in the everlasting Light of the Lord. In this dawning, the Light of Christ was preached up as a Lantern to our paths and as the ground of our Faith. Others, however, held to visible orders, and to written faiths of a visible church, as a lantern to their paths and as a ground of their Faith.

As our understanding came to be more and more opened, we saw with clarity that other churches used outward marks and tokens to determine or manifest whether a person is a member of their Church or whether they should be received into society with the Church.

We, however, believed in the Light of our Lord Jesus Christ, and had the evidence in ourselves, that we were of the true Brotherhood and members of Christ’s body. Because of this, we were at a loss to infallibly manifest or determine by any outward marks or tokens that we were, in reality, members of the true Church.

This Light revealed to us those who were in the Gentile Nature [Outward Nature] and had come no further than the Outward Court. Those in the outward court might have all the outward marks and signs of a member of their Churches and yet know very little of the washing by the water of Regeneration and Sanctification through the Spirit which every member of the true Church, built on the Rock Christ, come to be the witness of.

And therefore, our opposers say that we are a confused People because we do not gather into church fellowships and have no certain Way to know one another as members of the Church in the Way that we have. They asked us why we do not put forth our own creeds so that others may know what and how many Articles of Faith we adhere to and what we stand for and what we stand against.

In truth, the best answer that we were capable of giving is that the true Church is in God; the author and finisher of our Faith. We believe in the sufficiency of his Grace to which we are obedient according to our respective measures given of God and received by us. We have a witness in our Consciences that is evidence that we are of the true Brotherhood and of the Church of the First Born whose names are written in Heaven. We do not allege or confirm any outward marks and signs by and through which our bodies, the temples of the Holy Ghost, ought to be accounted and determined within the pale of the true Church.

This is a paraphrased version. You may read the original here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rMgobD4tRj3ro-5T5fO4QcbvE2dNFsT...

From: The Christian Quaker, William Rogers. 1680

Through Roger's historical documentation, we can reach all the way back to the origins of the Quaker gathering and see that their world (way of being) was foreign to those who adhered to outward "creeds."

I want to take a moment to highlight that there is a kind of playfulness woven between Roger's words. Imagine. People, who, by their own admission, professed adhere to outward forms, (note, there is no ambiguity here; they admit to adherence to outward forms) approached the Quaker Gathering. They call them confused because they are not instituted and ruled by outward creeds. The Quaker response is precious. You can just see them standing around looking at each other with questioning faces and saying to one another: "They miss the whole point. How do we answer? They want us to give them outward signs and marks when we are not of the outward nature any longer. We can only say that we do not adhere to outward marks or signs because we no have been lead out of adhering to outward marks or signs by the Light itself reaching into our conscience and becoming our guide direct and without the mediation of outward forms. "

When you write: "I'm still trying to figure out if we share external criteria, whereby an outward-anchored versus a Presence-anchored demeanor might be discerned."

I am dubious there are externally duplicatable criteria that can be used to determine "Presence-anchored" in the scientific sense that is repeatable in and for each individual or group. The reaching in of the Light itself into the conscious and conscience is not of the subject/objective paradigm of the scientific way. That is, a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by direct and unmediated Light or Presence itself is of the subjective/objective paradigm of the conscious anchored in and the conscience informed by outward forms. The reaching in of the Light itself is experienced directly and intuitively without regard to outward demeanor, personality, behavior, etc.

However, with that said, those "opposers" of the early Quakers certainly did notice the Quakers were manifestly (outwardly) different in that they judged them as confused People because they did not gather into church fellowships and had no certain Way to know one another as members of the Church in the Way they did.

The world (way of existence) of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the reaching in of direct and unmediated Presence itself is, in essence, of a different nature than a conscience anchored in and a conscience informed by outward forms. It is a life wherein identity, meaning, and purpose is not anchored in outward religious, economic, and religious, forms, traditions, practices, etc.

I hope this furthers our discussion.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 1st mo. 28, 2016 at 7:26pm

Thank you Keith.  Your posting is instructive as usual, and provides many insights into the thinking and experience of early Friends.

When I mention above that at least Liberal Meetings do not certify that one is Enlightened (shorthand for Presence-abiding), I take that as consistent with your underlined passage from Rogers:

We do not allege or confirm any outward marks and signs by and through which our bodies, the temples of the Holy Ghost, ought to be accounted and determined within the pale of the true Church.

What is Membership then? 

Perhaps here in our time, we encounter hybrid of Fox- and Rogers-based practices. 

The institution of Membership allows the semblance of a conventional church to assemble within the body of a Meeting, with individuals confirming for the public record that they identify as Friends.

As such, we expect members to serve the Meeting in its various roles, unless released to pursue a tested leading. 

In return, a Monthly Meeting is in a position to authenticate a given individual's claims to membership. 

That a Friend has completed a Clearness process, including approval from Business Meeting, or has transferred membership from elsewhere, leads to the status of "recorded member" in the database (e.g. NPYM.db).  Membership in the RSoF is a matter of empirical record.

Friends need "out" public boosters, higher profile affiliates, even celebrities (e.g. Rufus Jones, Kenneth Boulding, Mary Dyer) willing to put their reputations on the line and uphold the collective institution we call the Religious Society of Friends.

However there's no pretense that in certifying members we are somehow in transgression of the above Rogers Rule.  When it comes to who is Enlightened, or in the Presence of God, lets keep it simple:  we have no way of knowing except in our own case, and even then, doubts may creep in.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 1st mo. 29, 2016 at 12:46am

Kirby. Our discussion is instructive to me. Four almost four years now I have been in direct intense and intentional discussion with other Quakers on the internet and in various monthly meetings with a mind to work through whether to seek outward membership in a monthly and/or yearly meeting. Since I was 25 years old (I am 54 now), I have considered (off and on) whether to gather among the outward instrumentalities of the RSOF. Twenty years ago, I almost became part of the Ohio Yearly Meeting. However, when I would center down into the Spirit itself concerning outward membership the Spirit itself dimmed. There was no sense of value such membership. 

You ask: "

What is Membership then?"

Especially over these past four years, I have centered into membership with a body of people that are gathered only to the ever-present experience of the Light itself; resting upon our conscious and informing our conscience without regard to any outward institution. This membership is not empirically definable or codifiable through outward instrumentalities or outward ideological constructs.

As with many founding Quakers, there are many of us today who are members of and gathered into (not any outward body or institution) a body of people who experience the grace of inward reaching Presence itself filling our conscious and informing our consciously intuitively as sufficient to gather and organize us.  There are many of us who are un-gathered to outward institutions but who are gathered into an intuitive membership. The wonderful thing about this gathering is how quickly we know one another when we meet. 

None of this is to suggest I disagree with what you've said or that I am judging being gathered into an outward institution. I'm merely offering a different experience. I will continue worshipping with people in various Meetings as occasion offers. I do cherish the fellowship of people. 

I am in a deep spirit of thankfulness for your perspective and the perspectives of all those who I have been in contact with over these past four years. My conscience is cleared in the Light itself is as my only rule and guide. 

Peace Friend. 

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 1, 2016 at 2:46pm

Hello, Forrest. I needed time with your response. I have seen for some time that you have felt the need to qualify my statements. So I recognize the "agree-but" dynamic in your responses.

Recognizing that, when I first read your responses to me, I have to work through an initial defensive reaction that manifests on the horizon of my soul. This reaction manifests as frustration that you are assuming my intent is that everyone just, right now, stop participating in a world (way of existence) wherein the conscious is anchored in and the conscience is informed by outward forms. I also recognize a frustration that you assume I am judging a conscious and conscience anchored in and informed by outward forms as "bad" or "evil." This latter frustration comes out of my own recognition that my own words often validate your concern. So, while your qualifying responses often frustrate me, I appreciate them because they often expose flaws in my choices of expression. I have isolated this acknowledged tendency toward my writing projecting a good and evil paradigm to my emersion into the writings (and their influence) of the founding Quakers who were very judgemental toward those outside the Quaker Gathering and those inside the Quaker gathering who spoke out against others in the Quaker gathering publicly. They were downright brutal to one another. This tendency to judge the conscience of others who did not share their conscience as "evil," "satanic," "devilish," and so on, can infect of the conscience of the reader like a virus. This character of the imposition of conscience sometimes bleeds over into my writing especially when watchfulness in eternally sustained self-conscious and conscience itself (Presence or Spirit) dims in the shadow of conscious and conscience guided and informed by outward forms nurturing a judgemental spirit. This is not the intent. The intent is to bring into focus ways of existence (worlds) that are, in essence, of a different nature on this earth. And beyond that, to offer a world (way of existence) wherein the self-conscious and conscience ego is anchored in and informed by a sustained solitude on this earth without regard or respect to outward social instrumentalities and persons. That is to offer this world those who no longer respect and regard a way of existence (world) on this earth that is anchored in and informed by outward social instrumentalities and persons. My intention is not to judge the latter as "bad" but to offer an alternative to the latter.

It is in this context, that I wrote this blog piece; highlighting aspects of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by outward forms. It is a reality that a way of existence (world) wherein the conscious and conscience are anchored in and informed by outward forms regards and respects outward instrumentalities and persons and these persons (professors) craft or profess outward principles, notions, ideas, agendas, practices, etc., to capture the attention or conscious and conscience of others anchored in and informed by their particular outward forms. It is a reality that most people who live in a world (way of existence) on this earth that are anchored in and informed by outward forms readily admit that their conscious and conscience is informed by outward forms. This is an important aspect. The nature of this way of existence it not disputed by those who exist in this world on this earth. However, they will express their dissatisfaction when my words come across as judging their way of existence in negatively.

Penington writes:

"And mark; it is not the different practice from one another that breaks the peace and unity, but the judging of one another because of different practices. He that keeps not a day, may unite in the same Spirit, in the same life, in the same love with him that keeps a day; and he who keeps a day, may unite in heart and soul with the same Spirit and life in him who keeps not a day ; but he that judgeth the other because of either of these, errs from the Spirit, from the love, from the life, and so breaks the bond of unity. And he that draws another to any practice, before the life in his own particular lead him; doth as much as in him lies, destroy the soul of that person. This was the apostle's rule, for every one to perform singly to the Lord what he did, and not for one to meddle with the light or conscience of another (undervaluing his brother, or judging him because his light and practices differed from his.) but every one to keep close to their own measure of light, even to that proportion of faith and knowledge, which God of his mercy hath bestowed on them. And here is the true unity in the Spirit, in the inward life, and not in an outward uniformity."

"The great error of the ages of the apostasy hath been, to set up an outward order and uniformity, and to make men's consciences bend thereto, either by arguments of wisdom, or by force ; but the property of the true church government is, to leave the conscience to its full liberty in the Lord, to preserve it single and entire for the Lord to exercise, and to seek unity in the light and in the Spirit, walking sweetly and harmoniously together in the midst of different practices. Yea, and he that hath faith, and can see beyond an other, yet can have it to himself, and not disturb his brother with it, but can descend and walk with him according to his measure; and if his brother have any heavy burthen upon him, he can lend him his shoulder, and bear part of his burthen with him. Oh ! how sweet and lovely is it to see brethren dwell together in unity, to see the true image of God raised in persons, and they knowing and loving one another in that image, and bearing with one another through love, and helping one another under their temptations and distresses of spirit, which everyone must expect to meet with."

Whitehead writes:

"Nevertheless, it is signified unto me by the Spirit, that some which have obtained part of this Ministry, such as for corrupt ends shall transform themselves as Ministers of righteousness and children of the Light, may and shall err from the Spirit and life whereinto the Ministers of Righteousness are transformed by the Lord, that they are approved, being tried by false spirits, covered with the form of true doctrine, may be manifested that they do know the Shepherd's voice, and love to follow him and not a stranger: for I do certainly know, that such as depart from the Light and are strangers to the Life, will get and treasure up the words, and thereby through worldly wisdom lye in wait to deceive, and draw from the innocency of the Gospel ... into fleshly liberty and admiration of their persons, because of outward knowledge, parts and gifts, in which they will seek to exalt above the true seed of the woman, though thereby they cannot reach the things that are eternal; and such serve not the Lord Jesus Christ, but themselves: the Light having shined in their understanding, and the glance thereof leaving some impression of heavenly things, but not knowing the heavenly nature and virtue, they will be prejudiced and envy such as cannot have unity with that which they bring forth, nor bow to their likeness; and from that ground bitterness and persecution grows. Therefore, let this be a witness now and in ages to come, against such as murmur at, hate and persecute those that cannot in conscience or otherwise join to their form of doctrine and worship, though they should make it, as like our doctrine and practice as possibly they can invent; nay though should be the very same in outward appearance ..."

Both Penington and Whitehead, in these quotes, make it clear that it is not differences that are the problem; but it is when people go beyond acknowledging the differences to judging each other that is the source of disunity.

I share these quotes to lay it upon you that it is not my wish to judge those who do not share a life anchored in and informed by direct and unmediated Presence itself as "bad." It is my wish to highlight and acknowledge the different worlds for the nurture of those whose conscious and conscience are no longer anchored in and informed by outward forms and to receive the same from those who share the mystery of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by Presence itself. I agree with you that there are many many people who "find nourishment" in outward forms and will even go further to say that, were their conscious and conscience to lose them as anchor and guide, their souls may be hurt. I have no bitterness toward those whose conscious and conscience are anchored in and informed by outward forms. As Penington, I walk amongst them daily on this earth sweetly and harmoniously in the very midst of essentially different ways of existence on this earth.

Again, I am thankful for your response. It both edified and challenged.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 1, 2016 at 11:58pm

Um, I can't help thinking that we are talking about the same 'stuff'.

But consider, if one of those ancient people were to tell another to "turn to God" -- This would not make sense as something literal and physical: "What, does he want me to lie down & look up?" -- but would make sense if understood to mean: "Put your trust in God, address your thoughts with the intention of speaking to God, expect the answers to your questions and worries to come from God, seek to know and love God etc."

If you were to tell somebody: "Anchor your life and consciousness and conscience in Presence" -- It doesn't seem nearly so clear what you would mean for him to do.

I think my way of putting it would be more like: "You can depend on God for your physical needs and actions, clearing up your thoughts, letting you know which emotions matter and which do not; the guidance you need for that is already, continually present. You don't need to make a big deal about what to eat or do, how  you should think about anything, how you feel about anything -- or how you should put things -- because the Spirit is here to take care of all that."

?

Whose ways of putting things work best for encouraging people in that direction? -- probably whichever ways we're each personally Guided to use...

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 2, 2016 at 12:20am

I have explained in detail numerous times over and over exactly what a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by direct and unmediated presence means and will continue to do so. I encourage you to go about sharing your message in any way you wish and I will do the same. You are stating the obvious by writing people will decide for themselves. It is as if you think people (like myself) don't understand the obvious and you need to go about stating it.  I personally (as I have written many times) have no expectation that anyone will come into an experience a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by Presence itself. That is not my role. Mine is to merely share the message. 

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 2, 2016 at 1:05am

Well, whatever you're inspired to do.

I'm not always sure that _I_ "understand the obvious"! -- particularly not when it's 'explained in detail numerous times'!

But I'm certainly not saying that "people will decide for themselves"; I'm saying that the best way for them to convey their needed messages

will be Decided for them; and that they will find themselves using that best way so far as they trust the Spirit to provide it. (It will not always be the same way, particularly as we are not always talking to the same people.)

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 2, 2016 at 2:12am

Forrest. Because you've said we are talking the same "stuff"I'm interested looking one piece of stuff you've recently posted to gauge whether I agree.

You wrote:

"You can depend on God for your physical needs and actions, clearing up your thoughts, letting you know which emotions matter and which do not; the guidance you need for that is already, continually present. You don't need to make a big deal about what to eat or do, how you should think about anything, how you feel about anything -- or how you should put things -- because the Spirit is here to take care of all that."

Would you explain what you mean by the word "God" and explain how it is that we depend on God for our physical needs. What exactly do you mean by the phrase "depend on." Also, what is the nature of the "guidance" that is continually present. What do you mean by the word "Spirit" and how is it that the Spirit takes care of what to eat or do, or how you should think about anything, or how you feel about anything?

What is the nature of dependence on God? Where is that dependency manifested? Are you able to use different words for God and Spirit? Where does God reside?

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 2, 2016 at 10:00am

This is not like writing a technical manual...

John the Baptist and Jesus were not pointing to different entities, were not looking to nor being guided by different entities

_or_ "deciding for themselves" how to deliver their messages. John did not decide to wear animal skins like Elijah and wait for people by the Jordan; Jesus did not decide to travel around, feasting in mixed groups of  rabbis and outcasts. They were each Sent with different instructions, and were able to reach different people by following these.

------------

So if you ask me to "explain" what I mean by the word "God", or how we depend on Hrm for our physical needs... this is evidently not the word you would use, or how you think of what you do.

But so far as I understand your words about making 'Presence' the central focus of your existence, that would be how you encounter God's workings. We aren't talking about concrete objects with discrete boundaries;

but what we're talking about defines Itself, in language suitable to the listener.

There are certainly people who would indignantly say, "I don't depend on God for my physical needs; I have to work my butt off to earn them!"

So, even though God establishes the conditions and enables them to receive their physical needs by working their butts off, they aren't aware of the spiritual foundation supporting their lives. If one of them sought to "Depend on God for your physical needs," he might well continue to work hard in the process of receiving what he needs -- but he would realize God at work in his working and in his receiving. ("Realize" in the sense of 'know something intellectually _and_  recognize it in one's experienced reality.')

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page