Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 2, 2016 at 1:29pm

Hello Forrest. Thank you. 

To back up. You have determined that "we are talking about the same stuff." And in another post, you have suggested we are in agreement that "Presence needs to be our foundation and starting point" and that maybe we disagree about words.

You then go about distinguishing between the words I use and the words you would use in another post.

My response was to ask you what the words you use mean. That is, I asked you not to use the words themselves but to define them. You are the one who has determined that we are talking about the same "stuff." You shared that determination with me. Are you suggesting I should just agree with you and not question your determination? I am asking you to develop further how it is that you came to the determination you expressed. 

Your last response to me is "this is not like writing a technical manual." In essence, characterizing my questions to as a indication I think we are writing a techical manual. This characterization is unfortunate and misapplied. 

Notice I did not overlay or impose any characterizations of your words. I have asked you to further explain the words you use. You then go on to say John the Baptist and Jesus "were not pointing to different entities" and were not looking to nor being guided by different entities." And then you write "they did not decide for themselves how to deliver their messages."

Are you suggesting that I believe John the Baptist and Jesus were pointing to different entities?

I have no issue with your contention that each ''were sent with different messages and were able to reach different people"

However, none of this answers my question asking you to further explain the words you used. You have not explained most your words further. However, you do say you "understand" my "words about making Presence the central focus" of my existence. That is, by the word "understand" you acknowledge you are "aware of the nature and significance of" the word I use ... Presence. In past discussions, you and others have asked asked me what I mean by the terms I use and I have answered. My questions to you are an indication that I am not sure whether your use of the the terms "God" and "Spirit" etc, signifiy the same experience. Are you suggesting that I should just accept your determination without question? Or maybe you are suggesting that because "what we're talking about defines itself, in language suitable to the listener" is an indication that your words are not "suitable" to me because I ask you to further explain your words? I'm not characterizing your words, I am asking if that is what you mean by them.

Finally, thank you for further explaining one of my questions concerning what you mean by "depend on" God for physical needs. I better understand the sense of your meaning.

Not that I'm asking you to write a technical manual, however, I wonder whether you are willing to answer the rest of the questions I asked?

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 2, 2016 at 2:24pm

I merely don't think that "defining" God -- or defining "Presence" -- are useful ways to proceed. I could attempt to define "Keith", but it wouldn't help anyone to know you better.

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

As far as Jesus & John the Baptist, these can serve as examples of people who were clearly talking about the same 'thing', but expressed it in different ways, which did not appeal equally to all listeners. We are 'like' them as a person who brings a bucket to a fire is like someone who brings a firehose, but where the water goes should be the same.

You can agree with me or not; isn't that for you to decide based on how you understand me?

Your experience is your experience and my experience is mine; but the source of that experience, what's there to be experienced -- is one source.

When I say that That[HSe] defines Godself... I'm saying that whether you understand my words is entirely less important than knowing 'Whom' they're about.

This is like relations between people; their 'knowing' each other deepens as they continue to relate.

People come up with different words-about, which often do help us realize better what we can expect from that 'Whom' -- who would, however, escape from any definition I tried to trap 'It' in...

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 2, 2016 at 4:51pm

Forrest. It has been so helpful that you have taken the time to explain further why it is not helpful to explain further. Had you not explained further why it is not helpful to explain further, I would not have understood the words you used to explain further why it is not helpful to explain further.

So, even though I am still not sure what YOU mean by "God" and "Spirit" and etc., because you do not find it helpful to explain them further, I do understand why you do not wish to explain them further because you have explained further way it is not helpful to explain further.

I have enjoyed our discussion. The next time you wish to relate to me by asking me to explain further the words I have written. I will respond. "Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! If you do not understand the words I have written; that means my words are not 'suitable' for you. Asking for further clarification is an indication that the Spirit is not speaking to you through the words I originally wrote. Hold on now! Don't ask me to clarify what Spirit means or to clarify the nature of Spirit speak. You have just made the same mistake. Just accept my determination that you are not able to understand my words; that they are not helpful and go about searching for the words of another that may be more suitable." 

In any case, I appreciate your patience in further explaining why it is not helpful to further explain. Because of your further explaination, my understanding of your words was furthered.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 2, 2016 at 6:20pm

Nice -- but my way of 'explaining further' is not like 'defining'.

Jesus did not 'define God.' People said that he had 'introduced' them to God.

This wasn't like saying: "God, this is Keith. Keith, God." He told stories and provided descriptive metaphors.

I don't think I've quite asked you to 'define' "Presence." I do think you've given us descriptions of what your experience of this is like... but said remarkably little about:

"What relation does this Presence present to my consciousness bear to the world we experience physically, care about emotionally, think about intellectually?"

Do you have ideas about that, or eschew those as irrelevant distractions from what happens in your experiencing?

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 3, 2016 at 2:42pm

Hello, Forrest. I appreciate your willingness to engage me further. While it may end that we do not agree on many things, these extended discussions, the back and forth, is compelling to me because many people are not willing to enter into a process of developing and presenting context to our words and experience. It is so much fun to dig deep into each other's words and meaning. 

Last night, I spent time deepening down into direct experience of existence and morality anchored in and informed by existence itself because these extended discussions can often trap me into existence anchored in and morality informed by outward forms. 

You wrote:

I merely don't think that "defining" God -- or defining "Presence" -- are useful ways to proceed. I could attempt to define "Keith", but it wouldn't help anyone to know you better.

and

... my way of 'explaining further' is not like 'defining'.

These words are of particular interest to me. I really want to look deeper at them. You are particularly interested in characterization my questions to you as asking you to "define." So, let's look back at my questions.

I ask:

"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?"

You have misquoted me as using the word "define." In fact, I used the word "explain." Now, words mean things. By using the word explain I am asking you to describe in more detail. I agree, there is a nuanced difference between the words explain and define. However, as has been proven, I did not use the term "define." Again, you misquoted me as using the term define. By doing so, you introduced a nuance into the discussion that was not obviously part of the original set of questions I asked. Then, through false witness, you justified your unwillingness to answer the questions based on misrepresentation of my choice of words. You falsely represented me as using the word "define" and then, in that false context you characterized the answering of the questions as not "useful ways to proceed." 

You then went on to further muddy the discussion by writing, " my way of 'explaining further' is not like 'defining'" Well, I did not use the word define, I used the word explain. Notice how important it is to your response that you misquote, and by extension, misrepresent my word choice. Because here you admit that you do, in fact, engage in explaining. 

Now, I perfectly understandable that you may understand my questions as asking you to define. However, you did not ask me to further explain what I meant by asking you to explain. You entered in a process of jumping to conclusions based upon a false quoting of a word I used.  

Let's move on.  You write:

"Jesus did not 'define God.' People said that he had 'introduced' them to God."

Again. You misquote me as using the word define. I wonder, did Jesus explain God? Beyond that. Are you basing your definitive determination that Jesus did not define God in the writings of others both canonical and otherwise? How do you know that the person Jesus did not define God on occasion. I suggest, the best you can say is, as far as you know, from the documentation of others, Jesus did not define God. Also, notice the definitiveness of your original statement. I ask you, have defined Jesus as not being a definer of God. What about when Jesus is recorded (John 10:30) as saying: "I and the Father are one." Was this not a defining statement of about God and himself. 

Note: when you write "Jesus did not 'define God' in the context of our discussion you are implying that I think Jesus defined God. In the context of our discussion, writing: Jesus did not explain God would have been more pertinent and contextual. Again, you did not ask me what I meant by asking you to explain, you just misquoted me to justify not answering.

You then write:

"This wasn't like saying: "God, this is Keith. Keith, God." He told stories and provided descriptive metaphors."

It is true he told stories and spoke in metaphors. Are you suggesting he was limited to story and metaphor only throughout the whole of his walk on this earth? Notice, I'm asking you to explain further. I am not just jumping to conclusion. Think about this, maybe his words (recorded by John) saying: "I and the Father are one" was saying to those who heard his voice" God, here is _____ and _____ here is God. Wow. 

Beyond, that the wonderful thing is we are not dependent upon the outwardly recorded metaphors and stories of Jesus. Does not the inward experience of and reaching in of the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, Presence itself, on the throne of the conscious and conscience explain and maybe even define God?

Moving on.

You wrote:

"I don't think I've quite asked you to 'define' "Presence." I do think you've given us descriptions of what your experience of this is like... but said remarkably little about:

"What relation does this Presence present to my consciousness bear to the world we experience physically, care about emotionally, think about intellectually?"

Do you have ideas about that, or eschew those as irrelevant distractions from what happens in your experiencing?

"I don't think I've quite asked you to "define" "Presence." You don't think you've quite asked? You seem unsure of yourself and the nature of our past discussions? But beyond that and more to the point, I never suggested that you asked me to 'define' anything. I did not use that term. Again, you have misquoted me for the sake of your argument. Of course, you didn't ask me to 'define' Presence because I never suggested that you did ask me to define Presence. Again, you impose and interject words into my writing that I did not use.

And finally, turning to your last comment and final questions. These will have to wait a bit, as I have run out to time.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 3, 2016 at 9:16pm

Usually when somebody asks you: "What do you mean by ____?" they are asking for something akin to definition -- or at least in my experience, this is what people have meant. It's not the same as: "Could you tell me a little more about ___?"

That is, it basically comes down to "What do you think the word 'God' refers to?" --

and for me, much of what I've come to believe are ideas which  came to me through external sources -- but  which I am internally led to believe originated as genuine intuitions of other people who have likewise known God (partially, of course, because there is a very great deal of God to know, and much to be mistaken about. The Hindu parable of blind men groping an elephant seems to apply to much of what we're given about God.)

And much of what I think about this comes to me more directly, when I ask to know more -- or when I'm writing about God and want to know what I can helpfully say.

When I'm reading something externally about God, then there's an internal sense that tells me:

'Yes, this is true' or

'No, this is not right at all!'

or

'If there's any true interpretation of this stuff at all, _I_ haven't gotten it yet!'

This is why I tend to say, "Ask Hmr yourself!" -- because we can learn helpful and interesting things from each other -- but in order to truly know anything about God, yourself, that's simply the way to go about it.

We can disagree about one detail or another, because after all we're needing to fit what we're given into different frameworks we've constructed in the course of very different lives. So a certain amount of what we learn needs to be tentative, 'how I can understand things well enough for now'  knowledge.

What you say about 'Presence' guiding your aprehension of how things be and of how you should respond to them... sounds like we're talking in different ways, but talking about checking in with the same Be-ing.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 3, 2016 at 11:53pm

Forrest. I've been keen all day to finish up my previous response by responding to two questions you asked previously:

"What relation does this Presence present to my consciousness bear to the world we experience physically, care about emotionally, think about intellectually?"

and

"Do you have ideas about that, or eschew those as irrelevant distractions from what happens in your experiencing?"

I want to preface my answer by writing that I welcome and appreciate them. These questions are invigorating and challenging. Please feel free to request that I explain myself further if I am unclear in my response. I suspect a little mining may be needed to reach a point wherein I express myself with more clarity. My answer may also make clear to you that I am not quite understanding the direct and intent of your questions. If that is the case, please feel free to question me further. 

So here we go. 

A conscious (existence) anchored in and a conscience (ethic or morality) informed by Presence (the self-conscious ego sustained in) itself does not anchor consciousness in relation to outward collective physical representations (mirrors) of the physical earth through the reflections body. For example, self-sustained being is not conscious because of its relation to the collective representation tree ... both the idea tree and the perception or sensation tree through the function of the body. All outward collective representations could, of a sudden, be lost death of the body) and Presence itself will sustain.  That is conscious (existence, awareness) and conscience (ethic or morality) sustains because it is not anchored in the outward collective representation of the body or a group of bodies ... outward society order. This world or being or consciousness (way of existence) relates in the sense that it acknowledges outward collective representations, however, it is anchored or alive in and through Unpresented earth or being. Outward collective representations or mirrors of thoughts, feelings, desires, perceptions, and sensations, overlay the unrepresented earth.  

A conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the direct or unrepresented experience of Presence itself (the name of God or I AM) The world (way of existence) participates differently on this earth than does the world (way of existence) that of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by outward forms or collective representation. In this Presence participation, action is not guided by outward rules, principles, traditions, institutions, etc. For example, in Presence participation, helping or not helping a person is not informed by outward collective representations of a rightness or wrongness of helping someone in a given context. In participation Presence, a person may help or may not help according to the relative level of participation he or she experiences in relation to Presence itself. Put another way, a person may act or not based on the relative illumination of the Light in the conscious and conscience. Outward principles or codes are not relevant. In Presence participation, outward representations, creeds, codes, institutions, traditions, etc. are not part of the relationship. Important: Even the person he or she helps is not related to through the outward collective representation of an "other" physical body. Maybe we can delve further into this if our discussion moves forward. 

Finally, a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the experience of unrepresented Presence itself, is, in essence, a different way of participating on this earth because it participates in the unrepresented rather than the represented. 

I hope this initial attempt at answering your questions serves to further our discussion. I wish I had more time to develop the answer. I just figure I'll work through it as we go forward. 

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 4, 2016 at 1:57am

Um, I know that this world, my thoughts, my feelings are not what makes for my existence -- but they do form the environment which God gives me to sense through senses, thoughts, feelings. I feel what I'm given to feel, think what I'm given to think, observe what I'm given to observe -- What else could I think, feel, observe?

Maya is a pretty good show; and while I'd like it to be a little more humane, I really don't know what makes for human happiness and I do believe that God knows what does, far better than I do. So I pray for life to be easier on us all, and muddle along as led.

I do think that this is the life that suits most of us. It would not be worth living without the sense of connection to God -- but then that connection is supposed to develop, is an essential aspect of what God intends life to be.

If you feel that connection -- but it leads you away from other beings, thoughts, etc -- Well, again: You think what you're given to think, feel what you're given to feel (What else?)... and so that must be the approach to life that suits you.

No reason for either of us to envy or pity anyone for living the particular life God gives them.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 6, 2016 at 5:34pm

Forrest. Your last response moved me. Not because we agree, but because it challenged me. The whole of this thread is significant to me. Thank you for engaging with me. I am also equally thankful to Kirby. I anticipate any further response you may have.

It is the very process of what you designate as God establishing an environment based on the thoughts, feelings, and collective representations of the earth which  God has given and which you find suitable that many of us no longer participate in existentially.

Note: I am intentionally here not assuming what you mean by your use of the term God because, as you have indicated, you do not find it useful to (as you say) 'define' what you mean. You support the contention that defining the term God is not useful by stating Jesus did not define God. I am merely taking the term God at face value because it is the term you use.

A conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by outward forms understands leadings from God to be the inculcation of thoughts, ideas, feelings, etc., by God or people or institutions that we are then called to follow and around which actions are organized. You say, these outward thoughts, ideas, and feelings, perceptions, sensations, institutions, and collective representations of the earth are given by God. They make up the environment within which people exist.

I acknowledge this way of existence and I acknowledge to this way of existence is suitable to most people and that many people who live in this environment are given by God what to think, feel, and observe even when what they think are given by God are does agree with what God has given to others. I do not pity ways of existence nor do I envy them. These concepts are not relevant and do not inform my sharing of a different way. I have no expectation of how it is or will be received. Mine is to merely share it.

There is also a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the direct experience of being or identity, or consciousness, that sustains in intuition itself. It is led in and by intuition itself. In other words, awareness is established in and the spiritually moral kinesthesia happens in the immediacy of intuition itself. In this experience thoughts, ideas, feelings, and the collective representations that overlay the earth, they are not inculcated or given. Being led by intuited awareness or conscious itself is being led by the direct experience of the relative decrease, increase, or stasis of the intuited conscious and conscience itself. There is not a particular laying out or giving of specific outward ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc. that are to be followed or adhered to upon distillation. In active and sustained Living or Being in intuitive experience (the inward Light or Presence) itself, outward thoughts, ideas, and feelings, and collective representations of the earth are not relevant. It is not that people are given, by God, one set of constructs or another and they will follow as they are given. It is they no longer participate in a system or operation or environment of thoughts, feelings, and collective representation of the earth. In this intuited living, we no longer participate in the environment of God given (or people given or institution given) outward thoughts, feelings, and collective representation of the earth. In the Light or Presence (sustained awareness it itself), I do not believe in or adhere to the outward concepts. For example, take inclusiveness or exclusiveness. Inward sustained conscious (the Light or Presence) does not lead me to adhere to outward these concepts. In a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the inward reaching experience of the Presence itself, both are irrelevant. A way of existence in Presence itself (self-sustained being) may manifest behavior that those whose conscious and conscience are anchored in and informed by outward forms, will characterize with the outward designation of inclusive. However, the next moment the former may manifest exclusive behavior. Neither of these outward conceptual constructs have any role in leading a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by inward reaching Presence, even though he or she may manifest what a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by outward forms represents as one or the other at a particular moment. This way of existence is not led into or by conceptual constructs. In this experience, a person or group of people are not given what to think, what to feel, or what to observe. They exist in the Light and the Light exists in them. There is no need to be given what to think, feel, or observe because they are Presence in itself and presence sustain them in itself. The manifestations of the particular moment are not the focus. The relative movement or stasis of the inward reaching Light anchoring the conscience and informing the conscience is the focus. This is life in the living Guide itself. This is the Living Gospel. All outward forms are given over to the Light itself illuminating the conscious and informing the conscience. The environment of God given outward thoughts, feelings, and collective representations of the earth we not only find unsuitable; we do not participate or operate in such an environment.

To restate, outward concepts, thoughts, ideas, feelings, sensations, perceptions, traditions, institutions, and collective representations of earth, do not inform or anchor the actions of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by inward reaching Presence itself. In this world (way of existence on earth), the relative stasis and shifting essential Light itself is what informs and leads. This is the nature of spiritually intuiting Light. To come into concepts or representations is to leave the Guide itself and walk in a way of existence that is anchored in and informed by outward form whether given by a God and anything else.

This is I AM in the Light. The realm of outward political, economic, religious, forms, traditions, institutions, and collective representations that overlay the earth, no longer inform and anchor my identity, purpose, and meaning. They do not animate my action or inaction. I AM living, breathing, writing, acting, and moving, on this earth in the Light itself without regard to or respect for outward political, economic, and religious forms and institutions or the outward collective representations (sensations and perceptions) that overlay the earth. This is, in its very essence, a different way of existence on this earth. It is not of, as you have said;

"the environment which God gives me to sense through senses, thoughts, feelings. I feel what I'm given to feel, think what I'm given to think, observe what I'm given to observe."

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 7, 2016 at 1:12am

"Intuition" sometimes means 'a spiritual sense that gives true knowledge.' And sometimes, merely the way a person happens to understand a situation, based on more-or-less real insight.

And sometimes, as with "mathematical intuition", it comes out to mean 'one's preconceptions & prejudices.'

'Ideas about being anchored in direct intuition' of how you should, or should not, relate to 'external' influences -- are not necessarily the same as 'being anchored in direct intuition etc.'

You may think of "God" as meaning the reality your intuition would need to be rooted in to make it a valid reflection of your actual situation. (This is _not_ a reality in any way 'separate' or 'external' to you; it simply is not limited to your separate individuality.) If "God" were a meaningless word, or meant something influencing you from "outside" -- Then there would be no possibility of being in the condition you claim. Given that God is real, AMing away in each & all, what you claim becomes possible -- but if you leave out the only source available for confirmation or correction of your system -- you thereby leave yourself merely a confused solipsist.

That is, you may not think there's any need to posit a spiritual mind & heart of the Universe to generate & validate your experience -- but without that, you'd be a nothing that couldn't even imagine itself imagining.... But thank God I'm not obligated to convince you of that! -- just to say my piece and leave this whole heap of verbiage to be settled between God and you.

Comment

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