GuruEP to PETER:
How do you copy the text in here? from pure ascii (like notepad, or editplus) or from Word / WordPerfect or other wordprocessor? It has a lot of weird format coding in the html source, that would suggest this is an import from formatted text = big trouble.
Also everything is way too long. Start thinking about chapters and subchapters where we can stick it in. We have to do some overhauling of the set up / layout. Need more menu items etc.
Call me next week while you think about chapters and sub-chapters.
Have a great weekend!
FROM THE START I have only used Word. For all those years no problem. Nw two problems in a row. Could that have to do with what I said? Please check the html source in file #3 as well. How do these "weird formats" get in here?
. . . . . . . . . . . . ACIM . Feb. 4. This blog is being SHUT DOWN. First file #3 and now this file as well. I NEED HELP. Feb. 12: Now I no longer get any message. Nothig happens when I try to get my message out. Can you try to bring this problem to the attention of the people at blogpot. Why did it work until now?
Near the end of the last section, below this one, I said: “Listen to Ahmadenejad’s talk at the UN and compare that with: The speech that got JFK killed. Where did the truth come from? …”
What would have been a better question to ask? …
Let me give you a hint: “Identify the IdentifiAble (MgptMg)”! Can you see it now? …
Ching 41.1,3: When “Below average Scholars Hear the Truth (_-Ün^dA1) they will
. . . . . Greatly Ridicule It (TA*a_Z).” *a = Hsiao118.
41.1,4: If they do “Not Ridicule (PU*a) it then we. . . . . Don’t have Enough Means To (PUZuYIWy) find out the Truth(A1).”
. The dictionary equivalents of Shih(Ün) are “Scholar, officer, soldier, gentleman”. Star gives us: “Scholar / student / class of person / people / man / officer / man of learning / -leader”. When the “Lowest Class-of-leader Hears the Truth” what will they do? …
They will “Greatly Ridicule It (TA*a_Z).” The equivalents of Hsiao118 are: “To laugh, smile, glad …. Ridicule”. Star gives us: “laughs / ridicules / belittles / laughs[at] . laughs out loud”. This character only appears here. So what does the context demand here? …
41.1,4 refers to 41.1,3. If the worst kind of leaders do “Not Ridicule the truth enough then we Don’t have Enough Means To-find-out the Truth.” Can you see it now? …
Hsiao118, in this context, means anything that is done to prevent the “Truth(A1)” from getting out. And that includes assassinating a president, if necessary. Please listen to the talk that got Kennedy killed. Systems, like the IBM computer programming system, sciences, like semiotics,. and people, like Kennedy, just have to “disapper”. But, if we know why they had to disappear, then we have “Enough Means To (ZuYIWy) find out the Truth”. And “Truth” is a dictionary equivalent of the Tao.
. The homework I have given us at the end of the last section was:
3:3.5,8: “Knowledge provides the strength [or power] for creative thinking.” …
Let us start looking for the bait: We know deep down, and to some extent consciously (A) as well, that “Knowledge” is power. Knowledge of the truth is the lifeblood of democracy. If a critical mass of the people knows the truth, the truth will set them free. We will get the government OF, BY and FOR the people.
. “Enough” people must intentionally “Repeat(@1)” the truth they have learned. So that their knowledge (B) of the truth become representations (C) of the truth. Representations carry more weight in the Morphogenetic Field. And when the scale tips, there will be a paradigm shift. The masses of dumbed down people will now Automatically (E6) pick up the truth as before they have picked up the falsehoods which right now still predominate in the Akashic Field. How come? … .
Because the dumbed down masses are programmed not to think. When the truth predominates in the Field their programming becomes counter productive. I works for us instead of for our political masters. Where truth is the lifeblood of democracy (A), falsehood is the lifeblood of timocracy (B). Why? ...
. . .A . . . . . . There are six “DyAds(dyad)” in the Aristotelian tetrad.
D . + . B . . . Can you see them in the diagram to the left? …
. . .C . . . . . They are A-B, A-C, A-D, B-C, B-D and C-D. Remember our “Philosophy” sections. There the Verbalists (C) philosophers ‘depreciate’ the Materialists (D), the Spiritualist (A) and the Idealists (B). By doing that, they are defining their own position. If they are not D, not A and not B, then they must be C.
. At 544d of his Republic Plato said Timocracy (B), Oligarchy (D), Democracy (A) and Tyranny (C)] “are really crosses between our four types”. If the differences between the four types of government or the four types of philosophy were as clear as black and white then we wouldn’t need the philosophers to figure out what the “Boundaries(*1)” or Koshas between the four “sources”, or parts of the tetrad, are. Neiye 8 lines 10 to 13 come to mind Automatically (E6). So I better quote them again.
8j: When there is “Thought there Will be Knowledge (8i$pkn),”
8k When there is “Knowledge there Will be Stops or boundaries Yi (kn$p$iYi).”
8l . If of “All of Hsin’S Forms (1aHs@k) even one
8m Bypasses the Known (#jkn) boundaries then there will be Loss of Production (37Sg).”
. To replace the falsehoods in the COURSE can take quite a bit of work. And, if no writer (C) is willing to do his work, then …
we will not get democracy (A). The fourfold chain which we have to get working is broken at level C. Social engineers know that they don’t have to break all four links. To cause us to “Lose Production (37Sg)” all they have to do is weaken one link.
. Now let us look at the hook: …
3:5.5,8a: The “Knowledge [the AUTHOR provides] provides the strength for [what in the COURSE is called] creative thinking.”
3:3.7,7: “There are no strangers in God’s creation. (8) To create as He created you can create only what you know, and therefore accept as yours. (9) God knows His children with perfect certainty. (10) He created them by knowing them.” …
=========================================================
. In the last section, below this one I said under 3:2.4,2 that “you don’t ‘believe’ that you are not free”. That was a mistake, the AUTHOR said that “it [“The mind”] believes it is not free.” Most of my mistakes are calls for help, but this one is supposed to draw our attention to this passage: To “’believe’ that you are not free” doesn’t mean that you are not free. It is very important that you catch the hook that is in almost every sentence the AUTHOR has dictated. If you don’t catch it then you will swallow it along with the bait.
. Here, at 3:2.4,2, the AUTHOR “is implying that, even after being programmed by him, you are still ‘free’. You just .... ‘believe’ that you are ‘not free’. This shows you how careful you have to be when reading what the AUTHOR has dictated. If you don’t catch what he doesn’t want you to notice, then you ‘passively condone’ it. You are reading it. Just because you are not aware (A) of what he is saying doesn’t mean that he isn’t saying it. See how careful you have to be? …”
These sentences are not dictated, or written, off the cuff. Social engineering is a science.
. Most of my mistakes happen because I have to do with Sensitive Energy (E5) what can be done not only faster but better with Automatic Energy (E6), by computation (C) instead of thinking (B). Plato, in his Republic, and Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita, are talking about the DIVISION OF LABOR. Our political masters know it: The unelected advisors (B) do the thinking (B) and our elected politicians (C) do the talking (C). The DIVISION OF LABOR works well for them. So why are they not teaching it in sociology (A), philosophy (B) and political science (C)? …
Sociology is, or should be, about how religion (A), philosophy (B), politics (C) and economics (D) are the parts of a larger whole. Sociology is, or should be, about society as a whole. Steiner got close to it but not close “Enough(Zu)”. His “Economic sphere” and “Political sphere” fit right in, but his lectures on the Bhagavad Gita, in which the four spheres are described, turned me off.
. In Philosophy (B) at least the Republic should be taught properly, and Political Science (C) is, or should be, about democracy (A), timocracy (B) dictatorship (C) and capitalism (D). Only in the economy (D) can we see how the DIVISION OF LABOR works in the construction business. I have learned about it in the seven Week IBM computer programming course. No wonder the timocrats (B) had to make it “disappear”.
. Knowledge (B) is power and our political masters don’t want to share it with us. Some of the brighter students in our universities must study their subject outside of their classes, through books and the internet, and they must ask the right questions of their teachers in front of the class. This takes courage, but you are paying for your education, so you have the right to demand a proper education for your money.
. Sociology should be what the Republic is about: It is primarily about the DIVISION OF LABOR. What kind of Energy predominates in you depends, to a large extent, on the date on which you were born. In Artists (A) E4 tends to predominate. In Philosophers (B) it is E5, in Politicians (C) it is E6 and in Pragmatists (D) E7 tends to predominate. Isn’t that simple enough? …
So why are the social engineers, who are controlling our universities, not teaching it? …
You have to study the Republic outside of your philosophy class to get the answer.
3:3.5,7: “When you say you are acting on the basis of knowledge, you are really confusing knowledge [B] with perception” (D and C). …
The proper function of the intellect is to seek and find the truth. Knowledge (B) of the truth and of falsehood is power. Truth is the lifeblood of democracy and falsehood is the lifeblood of timocracy (B). When a critical mass of the people puts the truth into the Morphogenetic Field there will be a paradigm shift from falsehood to truth. All we need is the DIVISION OF LABOR. The truth is available in books like the Bible, the Gita, the Ching the Neiye and other sources, like the internet. The truth comes from the “eternal” through A to B. But B must “Align(%8)” itself with A. Then it can come from B to C but C must “Align” itself with B. When the contractor (C) gives his instructions to his subcontractors they must align themselves with him. If they go on strike the demand of the customer (A) cannot be supplied. A good communicator must communicate the truth. And it doesn’t matter where s/he gets it from. Look at Linda McQuaig. Where did she get it from? Listen to Ahmadenejad’s talk at the UN and compare that with: The speech that got JFK killed. Where did the truth come from? …
3:3.5,7a: “When …. You are acting on the basis of knowledge” you get from your own intellect then, according to the AUTHOR, you are doing it all wrong.
3:3.5,8: “Knowledge provides the strength for creative thinking.” …
=========================================================
3:2.4,1: “You are afraid of God’s Will because you have used your own mind, which He created in the likeness of His Own, to miscreate. (2) The mind can miscreate only when it believes it is not free.” …
. This is the homework I have given at the end of the last section, below this one. What I have added there is “[B]” behind “you have used your own mind [B]” to indicate that the AUTHOR means our intellect (B), and “[God]” behind “which He” to indicate that here, by “God” not only the AUTHOR is meant but that, in the alternative “meaning”, God is also meant. Please use that added information to look at your homework again. …
3:2.4,1a: The AUTHOR is “afraid of God’s Will”. Why? …
“because He created [your intellect] in the likeness of His Own, to miscreate”? …
No, our intellect is intended to be used for thinking (B). If you are even partially following me here, you are doing it. Now put yourself in the AUTHOR’s shoes. …
How would you feel about that? …
We are shaking the foundation of his pyramid. If even one good communicator (C) picks up on this then his “perfect creation” will collapse like a house of cards.
3:2.4,1a: What the AUTHOR said at 3:2.4,1a is the very ‘opposite’ of the hidden “meaning” he doesn’t want us to notice.
Cleverly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l).” I think that ‘reverse’ is a more useful identifier than ‘opposition’. ‘Opposition’ still applies but ‘reverse’ is easier to Automatically (E6) apply to every sentence the AUTOR has dictated.
3:2.4,1b: After you have “allowed” the AUTOR to program you, that is, after you have read “Enough(Zu)” of the COURSE without questioning it, can you still use “your own mind? …
What is the ‘reversal’ here? …
Are you using your own God given intellect (B) or is the AUTHOR using your mind (C) to “control” you? …
3:2.4,1c: What are you using your intellect for? …
“To find out the Truth(WyA1).” And us finding it must be scary to the AUTHOR.
3:2.4,2: “The mind can miscreate only when it believes it is not free.” …
3:2.4,2a: Our intellect can create only when it is free. This is a ‘reversal’ of what the AUTHOR wants us to believe (C). How do you find the ‘reversals’? …
By looking for them. There is another one in 3:2.4,2. Can you see it? …
3:2.4,2b: Our intellect will “miscreate when it …. is not free.” …
How can deleting two words give us the ‘reversal’ of what he wants us to “believe”? …
By saying that you don’t “believe” that you are not free, he is implying that, even after being programmed by him, you are still “free”, you just don’t “believe” that you are “not free”. This shows you how careful you have to be when reading what the AUTHOR has dictated. If you don’t catch what he doesn’t want you to notice, then you “passively condone” it. You are reading it. Just because you are not aware (A) of what he is saying doesn’t mean that he isn’t saying it. See how careful you have to be? …
. As I was saying before: If a “friend” gives you the book, be very careful. The Author has millions of “Sons” worldwide who are putting the AUTHOR’s “untruth” into the Morpho-genetic Field. Only when millions of us put the “truth” onto the other side of the scale can there be a paradigm shift.
3:2.5,1: “Nothing can prevail against a Son of God who commends his spirit into the Hands of his Father.” The overt “meaning” is: Command your “spirit into the Hands of the Father.” By now we know what “Son”, “God”, “Father” or “Holy Spirit” means in the COURSE. So what is he telling the uncritical reader to do? …
Say to the AUTHOR: Thine Will be done through me. ‘Contemplation’. Here, again, we have what the AUTHOR wants us to believe and what he doesn’t want us to see. And we see both “meanings” by Automatically (E6) looking for the ‘reversal’.
3:2.5,2: “By doing this the mind awakens from its sleep and remembers its Creator.” …
3:2.4,2a: By doing what will the mind awaken? …
By “allowing” the AUTHOR to program your mind. Is that an “awakening”? …
I think we have another ‘reversal’ here. Realizing what the AUTHOR is trying to make us belief can be compared to an “awakening”. Of course we also have ‘contemplation’.
3:2.5.2b: By programming your mind, the AUTHOR is your “Creator” in the sense that he is changing the content of your mind. But is he really the “Creator” of your soul (A), your intellect (B), your mind (C) and your body (D)? …
What we have here is the very ‘opposite’ of our “Creator”. We have another ‘reversal’.
3:2.5,4: “The Son of God is part of the Holy Trinity, but the Trinity Itself is One, (5) There is no confusion within Its Levels, because They are of one Mind and one Will. (6) This single purpose creates perfect integration and establishes the peace of God.” …
, Only 3:2.5,6 has the “creat” in it. But we need the preceding two sentences to lead up to it. What the AUTHOR has said about the “TriAd(_3ad)” is true and he is bound to impress those who know the triad. “True Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO%l).” What is it the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to notice? …
I said before that the truth is like a double edged sword. What is the “single purpose” the AUTHOR uses the truth for? …
He uses it to ‘reverse’ it. There is another flaw in his statement. If you know the triad, can you see it? …
A triad has the initiating impulse in front, the connective in the middle and the outcome at the end. Where is the “purpose”? …
In the Aristotelian tetrad (A-B-C-D), the purpose is at A. The customer (A) defines what he wants and is willing and able to pay for it. The B-C-D triad is producing the supply. It is semiotics. Social engineers don’t want us to know this. That why the AUTHOR is creating “level confusion” here.
3:3.5,6: “Certainty does not require action”? …
What I am giving you here are untested theories (B). To be certain about them being true they have to be tested in “action” (D). The truth is the ‘reverse’ of what the AUTHOR has said here.
3:3.5,7: When you say you are acting on the basis of knowledge, you are really confusing knowledge [B] with perception [D]. (8) Knowledge provides the strength for creative thinking.” …
========================================================
. In the last section, below this one, I have left you with 2:8.4,3 and 4, for homework. Ideally you have seen the three dots behind the quote, done it, and are eager to compare your work with mine, which follows. …
2:8.4,3a: “Everyone will ultimately look upon his own creations”. Question: …
Intentional thought (B) is the attempt to answer questions. The answers you get depend on the questions you ask. …
What does the AUTHOR mean by “his own creations”? …
Does he really mean: Your “own creations? …
If the AUTHOR has programmed your mind (C) then what it produces are his creations; if you are programming your “own” mind then …
2:8.4,3b: If the AUTHOR has programmed you, what will you “choose to preserve”? …
It you have programmed yourself, what will you “choose to preserve”? …
2:8.4,3c: In the COURSE, what does the AUTHOR mean by “good”? …
2:8.4,4a: If the AUTHOR only gives you “love” then what does “to look with love on its own creations” mean? …
With whose eyes do you “look” upon your mind’s “creations”? …
Instead of giving you a full interpretation here, I have left you only with the questions. …
2:8.4,5: “At the same time the mind will inevitably disown its misinterpretations which, without belief [(C), the AUTHOR’s programming (B)], will no longer exist. …
We have two identifiers, ‘depreciation’ and ‘contemplation’, which we can try on for size Automatically (E6), by computation (C). Which identifier is a fit here? …
What “form” does the ‘depreciation’ take here? What does it “mean”? …
He is saying: Let me help you to get rid of your intellect.
2:8.5,5: “Your own last judgement cannot be directed toward yourself, because [if you allow the AUTHOR to program you then] you are not your own creation. (6) You can, however, apply it meaningfully and at any time to everything you have made [what the AUTHOR has made through you], and retain in your memory only what is creative and good. …. (9) It is your own perfect judgment of your own perfect creations. (10) When everything you retain is lovable, there is no reason for fear [the intellect] to remain with you.” ‘Depreciation’.
. The “meaning”: Get rid of the intellect! , is repeated here. The reason “Repetitions(@1)” become more obvious is because we are using the find function.
2:8.5,5a: Why can’t “Your own …. Judgement …. be directed toward yourself? …
2:8.5,6a: What does “meaningfully” mean in the COURSE? …
2:8.5,6b: Why “can …. [the AUTHOR’s] own creation [be applied] …. At any time? …
This question can be answered by computation (C) Why? …
Because memory (C) is a mental (C) function. …
The mind (C) “never sleeps. (2:6.9,7) Every instant it is creating” what it is programmed to create, Automatically (E6). Remember? …
2:8.5,9a: Whose “perfect judgment” is the AUTHOR referring to here? …
Yours or his? …
This question can, again, be answered by computation (C). …
3:6.2,4: “Judgment [by your intellect] always involves rejection.” The “perfect judgment” we have here can only comes from the AUTHOR. Why? …
Because it only comes from “love”. At least that’s what you are supposed to believe.
2:8.5,10: ”When everything you retain is lovable, there is no reason for fear [the intellect] to remain with you.” We have here ‘depreciation’ in its most blatant “form”.
3:1.3,1: “The statement ‘Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord’ is a misperception by which one assigns his own ‘evil’ past to God. (2) The ‘evil’ past has nothing to do with God
(3) He did not create it and he does not maintain it. (4) God does not believe in retribution. (5) His Mind does not create that way.” …
The find function only gave us 3:1.3,5. How would you identify the quote as a whole? …
‘Contemplation’. What else can we learn from it? …
Why is what the Bible says a “misperception”, or untrue? …
He wants us to believe that he is kind, wise, honest and can be trusted. He wants us to believe that he is better than God, who wants revenge. He wants you to say to him: Thine will be done through me. What is that? …
It is ‘Contemplation’. Why does the AUTHOR have “nothing to do” with the “past”? …
Because he is in “eternity” in which there is no “past” and no “future”. There is only the “eternal” “present”.
. The AUTHOR did “not create it and does not maintain it.” …
Always look out for double-meanings. What are they? …
It is true tat the AUTHOR “did not create it [the world with its “evil past”] and he does not maintain it.” And what does he want us to believe (C)? …
That “He [the God of the Bible] did not create it and does not maintain it.”
. When we are given a truth, the mind Automatically (E6) looks for its antithesis. Even if he didn’t spell it out, the programmed mind (C) would still get the “message”. Why? …
Well “Aligned Words Likely Reverse.” Our political masters have studied the ancient scriptures for centuries.
. Lao Tzu advises us, not to “Underestimate your Enemy ($jâb)”.
3:2.3,5: “If nothing but the truth exists, right-minded seeing cannot see anything but perfection [This one doesn’t have “creat” in it.]. (6) I have said that only what God [the AUTHOR creates or what you create with the same Will has any real existence.” …
3:2.3,5a: After you have read “Enough(Zu)” of the COURSE uncritically, you “cannot see anything but perfection.” What does “perfection” mean in the COURSE? …
3:2.3,6a: Only what the AUTHOR “creates or what you [with the AUTHOR’s program in you] create …. Has any real existence.” …
If the AUTHOR can make you believe that something doesn’t exist then, for you, it doesn’t exist. See how carefully you have to read what the AUTHOR is saying? …
But with a bit of “Practice(pr)”, with coming across the same “meanings” time and again, it becomes easier. You will learn to do more and more of this work Automatically (E6), by computation (C). Much of what I am giving you here are untested theories (B). But this is not a theory, it is actually happening. I have only worked on the COURSE a little over half a year and already now, the double meanings of just about every sentence come to mind in a flash. My problem is describing these “Insights(72)” because I am not a “WritEr(C2er)”.
3:2.4,1: “You are afraid of God’s Will because you have used your own mind [B] which He [God] created in the likeness of his Own, to miscreate. (2) The mind can miscreate only when it believes it is not free. …
====================================================
. In the last section, below this one, I left you with a question: What will be the outcome of this “ideological war” we are engaged in? ...
When a critical mass of the people becomes aware that this war has gone on for centuries, the end of the war is near. What will be its outcome? I said yesterday that it will not be determined by money or social engineering. What will be the deciding factor which determines the outcome? …
It will be the truth. In the long run, the side the truth is on always wins. Money or social engineering can’t change the truth. It is what it is. With all the money they get to spend, social engineers can't change the truth. What can they do? What are they dong? ...
They are controlling people's minds so that they can't understand the truth. They know how to dumb people down. More specifically, they know how to program our minds. But they need social engineering to get us to “allow” them to do it. Much of the COURSE is about that. But even the best “TalkErs(C2er)” can’t fool all of the people all the time. They can fool all people some time. After I bought A COURSE IN MIRACLES, the AUTHOR had me fooled for about a Week, but how can he get away with the blatant lies, which are in there if you try to understand what he is saying. The COURSE only works if you don't question what he has dictated. Granted, there are some people who don’t pay attention to what the AUTHOR is saying, and they have to pay a heavy penalty for their indifference to the “truth”. Once they have “allow” the AUTHOR to programme them, they will be hard to DeProgram(PUÜd)”. But people with “Enough(Zu)” common sense can’t be fooled forever.
2:7.3,15: “The conflict [between the AUTHOR and us] is therefore one between love and fear”, if you can believe that it is “love” that is motivating the AUTHOR to deceive us..
2:7.5,11: “Time is essentially a device by which all compromise in this respect [“between everything and nothing [between Yu and Wu]”] can be given up. (12) It only seems to be abolished by degrees, because time itself involves intervals that do not exist [in eternity]. (13) Miscreation made this necessary as a corrective device.” …
The find function for “creat” only came up with 2:7.5,13 but I had to start at 2:7.5,11 to give you the context 2:7.5,13 is in.
. According to Sutra 3 of THE HOLY SCIENCE, time is “the idea of change …. in the Ever-Unchangeable”. The “Ever-Unchangeable” is the “eternity” the AUTHOR is talking about. So, from his standpoint the statement is true, and it rings true deep down within us. But it is not true in our equally valid reality of time and space. There is a reason God has “created” this world with us in it. We come here for a reason. The Hindus call it our dharma. This word is often translated as our “duty”.
. Essentially the AUTHOR tries to make us believe that “creating’ our world was a mistake and there is no “Task(D2)” for us to “Accomplish(cm)”. According to the AUTHOR, our body (D), our mind (C), our intellect (B) and our soul (A) “do not exist” for the purpose for which they were “created”.
“Everything and Nothing (YUWU) Mutually Produce Life (mtSg).” According to the AUTHOR, Lao Tzu doesn’t know what he is talking about. According to him, “everything and nothing can be given up.”
2:7.5,2: “If all His creations are His [the AUTHOR’s programmed] Sons, every one must be an integral part of the whole Sonship. (3) The Sonship in its Oneness transcends the sum of its parts.” The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Again, I had to quote a bit more than what came up with the find function. ...
2:8.1,1: “One of the ways in which you can correct the magic-miracle confusion is to remember that you did not create [it] yourself.” …
If you insert the “[it]” you come a bit closer to the truth the AUTHOR doesn’t want you to see. What becomes more obvious to the uncritical reader, after sufficient repetitions, is “that you did not create [anything] yourself.” You are supposed to believe (C), that your intellect does nothing but “miscreate”
2:8.1,3: “Your will to create was given you by your Creator, Who was expressing the same Will in His creation.(4) Since creative ability rests in the [programmed] mind, everything you create is necessarily a matter of will.” …
Please notice the three dots at the end of the line. That means: Think before reading on.…
2:8.1,3a: “Your will to create to create was” programmed into you by the AUTHOR.
2:8.1,3b: To the extent that “your Creator” has programmed you, he is your master.
2:8.1,3c: Thus, “everything you create is necessarily a matter of [his] will.”
. Can you imagine what the AUTHOR is doing to your mind if you are not aware (A) of what he is saying? …
If you uncritically read that “everything you” do is “a matter of [his] will” then you are “passively condoning (2:6.4,6)” it. This gives you some idea how careful you have to be when some “friend” gives you the book. Find out to how many other “friends” they have given it. Essentially, the pyramid scheme is a business. The AUTHOR’s “Sons” may not get into the money right away, but every “stranger” brought into the fold increases the “Son’s” power. There is a reason why the “pyramid scheme” is illegal. Just Google it. …
2:8.4,3: “Everyone will ultimately look upon his own[?] creations and choose to preserve only what is good, just as God Himself looked upon what He had created and knew that it was good. (4) At this point the mind can begin to look with love on its own[?] creations because of their worthiness.” …
========================================================
2:7.3,6: “You have misperceived or miscreated Us, and believe what you have made.” …
2:7.3,6a: “You have misperceived or miscreated” what the AUTHOR wants your mind (C) to create, which means that you should have “allowed” the AUTHOR to program your mind (C) to cause the senses (D) to see what he wants you to see.
2:7.3,6b: Instead you have “allowed” your intellect (B) to program your mind (C) to cause your senses (D) to see what YOU want to see.
. To replace the AUTHOR’s “untruth” with the “truth” we have to know it. This means that I have to burden you with more philosophy (B). Here comes a crash-course in J.G. Bennett’s systematics. Sytematics is the Dodecad one whole or Unit($1)” By analogy, the Aristotelian tetrad is Plato’s “Divided Line” (A-B-C-D) as semiotics is the B-C-D triad.
. The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. As the tetrad gives meaning to its parts, so the Dodecad is the whole that gives meaning to the rest of systematics. J,G, Bennett, we called him Mr.B, has described it in his 1558 page DRAMATIC UNIVERSE. Please don’t expect me to do justice to it because I don’t even fully understand it but thanks to Lao Tzu and the designers of the IBM computer programming system. I understand the first four N-Term systems well “Enough(Zu)” to help me to interpret the AUTHOR’s sentences. Mr.B has said himself that the first four N-Term systems are the basis of systematics. In fact, he has used the tetrad to interpret the Dodecad. In his ENERGIES he has broken down the Dodecad into three tetrads and thus “Identified(Mg)” the twelve types of energy. They are:
E1-E2-E3-E4 plus
E5-E6-E7-EB plus
E9-E10E11E12. E4 = A, E5 = B, E6 = C AND E7 = D.
. Every one of the 12 N-Term systems is a whole that has emerged through its parts and can give meaning to them. The tetrad can give meaning to the six “DyAds(dyad)” and the two “Triads(-3ad)” in it. Credit for helping me to understand this goes to Lao Tzu. The 6 “DyAds” are: A-B, A-C, A-D, B-C, B-D and C-D. There are two more dyads which are 1/2 in the Aristotelian tetrad and ½ outside of it. Try to “Identify(Mg)” them. …
They are E3-E4 and E7-E8, or E3-A and D-E8.
The 2 “TriAds” are: A-B-C and B-C-D. There are two more “TriAds”, which are 2/3 in the tetrad and 1/3 outside of it. Can you “Identify(Mg)” them? …
“Identify the IdentifiAble (MgptMg)”! Identifying the monad, is one, or the most important, operation in systematics. So please try it. ...
The two triads are: E3-A-B and C-D-E8. By having “Identified(Mg)” and “Named(Mg)” the 12 Terms of the Dodecad, he has given us the means to identify other N-Term system in the Dodecad as well. For instance E1-E2-E3 is a “TriAd”. The Hindus call it the Purusha. E5-E6-E7 (B-C-D) is another triad it is semiotics. B represents the semantic dimension of semiotics, C represents the syntactic dimension and D represents the pragmatic dimension. Each “TriAd(_3ad)” is a “Unit($1)” and E4 (A) is the connective between them. The reason the Aristotelian tetrad can be understood quite easily is because the designers of the IBM computer programming system have used the tetrad to design it. This also explain why our political masters had to make this perfect system
“disappear” the same goes for semiotics, which is the B-C-D triad. For “disappear” see page 99 of LOVE The Real Da Vinci CODE, by Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz.
2:7.3,8: “The fearful [those who are using their intellect] MUST miscreate, because they misperceive creation. (9) When you miscreate you are in pain.”…
These two sentences can be “Identified(Mg)” as ‘depreciation’. We know that, according to the AUTHOR, our intellect only “miscreates”. This means that a creative intellect programs your mind which then causes your senses to perceive what YOU want to perceive. Because the AUTHOR doesn’t want your intellect to work properly he says that it “MUST miscreate, because they [your mind (C) and senses (D)] misperceive creation.” And your intellect is to be blamed for that. Social engineers can give post-hypnotic instructions, like: “When you miscreate you are in pain.”
2:7.3,12: “This entails a set of Cause and Effect relationships totally different from those you introduce into misconception. (13) The fundamental conflict in the world, then, is between creation and miscreation.” …
According to the AUTHOR, he does the “creat”ing and your intellect does the mis”creat”ing. And, if you read his words uncritically, then you will even believe it.
2:7.3,14: “All fear is implicit in the second [the intellect], and all love in the first [ the AUTHOR’s “creation”]. (15) The conflict is therefore one between love and fear.” …
All “love” comes from the AUTHOR’s intellect and all fear comes from your intellect. The big question is: Can the AUTHOR outwit us or not? …
We are engaged in an ideological war. The final outcome of this war is not determined by who has more money or the better program to install into our minds, it is not even determined by the science of social engineering. By what, then, is the final outcome determined? …
I shall leave you with that question. …
========================================================
January 27, 2012 . . . . . . . . . Philosophy . . . ACIM
. There is a small mistake in the last section, below this one: “laving the cave (A)” should be: leaving the cave (A). I don’t normally bother about small mistakes like that. If a writer (C) would do the writing then they wouldn’t happen in the first place. But this one drew my attention to a bigger mistake. Can you see it? …
Plato’s interpretation of the “Line” is the “Cave” at 514a. I have given its sequence as A, B, C, D. But I have given it poorly. As you can see, we end up with: “laving the cave (A)”. Can you see the sequence Plato has given in the “Cave? …
It is the “Reversal($l)” of A, B, C, D. First we have the deductive movement of the “eternal” into time and space and then comes the “Reversal”, which is …
the inductive movement from the concrete back to the abstract. To see it, all you have to do is to read Plato carefully enough. It also helps to read Sutra 14 of THE HOLY SCIENCE:
. “PURUSHA IS COVERED BY FIVE KOSHAS OR SHEATHS.”
In terms of J.G. Bennett’s ENERGIES, Purusha is E1-E2-E3. It is covered by E4 (A), which is covered by E5 (B), which is covered by E6 (C), which is covered by E7 (D) and it is covered by “GROSS MATTER, THE 5TH KOSHA” (E8).
. And now comes the “Reversal($l)”: From the “INANIMATE KINGDOM” (E8) up to the “VEGETABLE KINGDOM” (E7), from E7 to the “ANIMAL KINGDOM”, from E6 to “MANKIND”and from E5 to “DEVATA OR ANGEL” (E4).
. Here, at Sutra 14, we have Plato’s “Line” and “Cave” in a nutshell. Why isn’t that taught in our universities, at least in philosophy? …
Because timocratic education is not democratic education. A Timocracy (B) is for the timocrats (B), while a Democracy (A) is for the people. Demos, in Greek, means people, in English. Why isn’t that taught in political science (C), or at least in philosophy (B)? …
In a timocracy we have the education OF the people BY the timocrats FOR the timocrats.
In a democracy we have the education OF the people BY the people FOR the people.
. Let us get back to the Tao Te Ching and look for these sequences there. …
At Ching 25.3 we have the A, B, D, C sequence. The whole of Ching 18 is the same A, B, D, C sequence. Instead of picking examples from the material world (D), as he did in Ching 11, Lao Tzu uses examples from politics (C). Politics (C) is closer to Philosophy (B).
. At Ching 17.1 we have the A, D, C, B triad. What is Lao Tzu telling us there? …
Dictatorship (C) can be the worst type of government, because power corrupts. Benevolent dictators usually become corrupted. But what is the worst type of government at Ching 17? …
And were does Lao Tzu describe it? …
At Ching 3 and 5. How does he put it at Ching 5? …
Some “Intelligent Men (wsmn) are InHuman(PU%5).” The AUTHOR of the COURSE is “Not Human”. For one thing he is a disembodied entity in the “eternal”, but what he is trying to, and actually does. to millions of human beings? …
He is mentally “imprison”ing them. That doesn’t happen by chance. To do mind-control effectively you must know the science of social engineering. And to apply that science to your fellow human beings, you have to be evil. No good person would do such a thing. Let us return to 2:6.9,5…
2:6.9,5: “The mind is very powerful, and never loses its creative force.” …
In the January 20 section we have answered the question: Which level is “mind” on? …
. The question I have left you with a Week ago was: What is the “creative force” of … mind (C) and of mind (B)? …
In J.G. Bennett’s Dodecad E3 is Creative Energy, E4 is Conscious Energy and E5 is Sensitive Energy. Thinkers (B) use Sensitive Energy (E5). Thinkers program mind (C). Mind C is programmable and it is faster than the intellect (B). If we program our mind (C) then it will work for us. And if the AUTHOR programs our mind then …
It will work for him. Either way the mind (C) is “creative” because the programmer (B) is creative.
2:6.9,7: “Every instant it [mind (C)] is creating.” Why? …
Mind (C) is fuelled with Automatic Energy (E6). It is the Aristotelian “efficient cause”. Thinking (B) has to be willed; computing (C) does not have to be willed. It works Automatically (E6) without you even knowing it. It “Does things Without Doing (WyWUWy)” them consciously (A). When you have “Repeated(@1)” an operation often “Enough(Zu)”, you can do it in your sleep. But be careful. Why? …
When the AUTHOR has programmed you then you are doing what he wants you to think (B), belief (C) and do (D) Automatically. Then you are no longer in “control”.
2:6.9,8: “It is hard to recognize [to believe (C), or know (B),] that thought [B] and belief [representations (C)] combine into a power surge that can literally move mountains.” …
Why is he telling us the truth here? …
Because the truth is a two-edged sword. It can be used for good or for the bad.
2”7.2,2: “Miracle working entails a full realization [a full “accept”ance] of the power of the [AUTHOR’s] thought in order to avoid miscreation”, in order to prevent the intellect from functioning properly. To see that this interpretation is not an exaggeration takes more experience with other less difficult sentences. If the FIND function had not come up with this one, I would have saved it for later. So, please hang in there.
2:7.3,6: “You have misperceived or miscreated Us [God and the AUTHOR], and believe in what you have made.” …
============================================================
. The first full paragraph on page 144 of EXISTENTIAL PHENOMENOLOGY is:
1: “The fact that phenomenology conceives meaning as semidarkness of unconcealedness and concealdness, makes it possible to call meaning ‘the REAL terminus of the cognitive encounter. (2) REAL terminus of man’s cognitive encounter are an admixture of ‘light’ and ‘darkness’. (3) When Plato represents meaning as pure idea, i.e., as pure ‘light’ he has already ceased to conceive meaning as a real TERMINUS OF ENCOUNTER. (4) The Platonic idea, conceived as pure ‘light’ actually is meaning whose ‘moment of vision’---of dis-closure---is ‘forgotten’. (5) But for such a finished result there is no room within knowledge as a genuine encounter, for the REAL encounter with meaning the latter reveals itself as the CHIAROSCURO of unconcealedness and concealedness, and, consequently, as a never-ending invitation to dis-closure by the subject as-COGITO. (6) Plato, then, had to cut meaning loose from the encounter in order to place it as an ‘in itself’ of a purely ideal kind in a world of pure essence.” …
If you have followed me for a while, you know that sentences in the Ching, the Neiye and even the Gita are all in need of interpretation. You will have also noticed that the “untruth” in the COURSE must be replaced by the truth. That is un-concealing the “untruth” in it. I also have done only what I am able to interpret and what I find worthwhile to interpret. The same is true of my interpretations here:
1: In general we have here, and in the rest of the paragraph, an appreciation of existential phenomenology (C) and a ‘depreciation” of materialism (D), spiritualism (A) and idea-lism (B). More specifically, “the …. terminus of the cognitive encounter” is on level D of Plato’s “Divided Line”.
2: There is not one “REAL termini of man’s cognitive encounter” but there are four. There is first our soul’s encounter with the “eternal”, then our intellect’s encounter with our soul (A), then our mind’s encounter with our intellect (B) and the last encounter is of our body (D) with our mind (C),
3: Plato has conceived meaning in the tetrad as given in the “Divided Line” and the “Cave”. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. “VerbaLists(C2er) Don’t Understand (PUkn)” this. But that doesn’t mean that the “KnowErs(kner)” (B) are wrong.
4: “The Platonic idea, [is] conceived as pure ‘light’” (A) because it came to him as a vision (A). Because of this, Steiner has called Plato a visionary (A). Pure visions come to us through the poets (A. See Winthrop Sargeant’s footnote on Gita 4.16.). Plato was too good a writer (C) to be called a poet (A). But he did have the vision (A) and he has described it well..
5: For “such a finished result there is …. room within knowledge as” four genuine encounters. To ‘depreciate’ this fact you have to deny that the construction business and the IBM computer programming system are examples of working tetrads. The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. This can be seen with our own eyes. To deny this fact, you have to close your eyes to it.
6: “Plato, then, had to cut meaning loose from the encounter in order to place it as an ‘in itself’ of a purely ideal kind in a world of pure essence.” …
The “world of pure essence” is the “eternal’ on the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara,” (A).
. At the end of the last section, below this one, I have given a diagram of the Aristotelian tetrad. It is Plato’s “Line (509d)” wrapped around the cross. Plato has given an interpretation of his “Line” at 514a of his Republic:
. At first, the eternal comes to us as the uncritical perception of “reality” (A). Then, with thought (B), there arises doubt about the “reality” that comes to us through our senses (D). Plato calls the “reality” that presents itself to us at first, eikasia. The Hindus call it, maya. Both words mean illusion, in English. The third step is the “turning around” (C) and the final step is laving the cave (A).
. “An odd picture and an odd sort of prisoner” says Glaucon after hearing the story. The response is: “They are drawn from life”. As I said before Plato was an excellent writer (C). “Now my dear Glaucon …. This simile [of the cave] must be connected throughout with what preceded it.” What preceded it is the “Line”. Why is the Republic not taught properly in universities? …
Who is controlling our universities with money and social engineering? …
. The problem as already started with Aristotle for Western philosophy and culture. He has used the truth his teacher has described without giving him credit for it. By this omission he as helped the social engineers to do their job. If Plato had made no mistakes then my job would be easier. In fact, If “WordErs(2er)” “Knew” as much as the “KnowEres(kner)” know then we wouldn’t need the “KnowErs”. The Division of Labour would be a triad instead of a tetrad.
. By studying the Ching we know that social engineering was already known at least 200 years before Aristotle. Is it too farfetched to assume that Plato’s university was infiltrated, and controlled by means of money, already 2300 years ago? …
Lao Tzu also helps us to fill the gap, Aristotle has left open, with the truth. I have to tell you right here that following him is not “Easy(ez)”. “Difficult and Easy Mutually necessitate a task to be Completed (dfezmtcm).”.Please try to follow me.
. The “Task(D2)”, Lao Tzu gives us to “Accomplish(cm)”, is his Tao Te Ching: The
“Tao Can be Taoed (A1ptA1) But-not(Fy) in the
. At Ching 63 and 64 Lao Tzu explains how to approach his book inductively. The parts of his book we are interested in right now, is his cosmology: Ching
42.1,1: The big “Tao Produces the One (A1Sg_1)”.
42.1,2: The “One Produces the Two (_1Sg_2)”.
42.1,3: The “Two Produces the Three (_2Sg_3)”.
42:1,4: The “Three Produces All Things (_3WnwU)”.
. Translating the first paragraph of Ching 42 is easy; understanding it is another story: …
The “Big Tao (TAA1)” comes from the time and spaceless dimension into our world of time and space through, what the Hindus cal,l the “Door, Dasamadvara”. It is at level A of the “Line”. If we assume that the sequence that is given here, at Ching 42.1 is the same Plato has given us in his “Line” and the “Cave”, then the “One(_1)” is the “Monad($1)” (A), the “Two(_2)” is the “DyAd(duad)” (B), the “Three(_3)” is the “TriAd(_3ad)” and “All material Things (WnwU)” would be J.G. Bennett’s “tetrad”. The “Four(_4)” only appears in chapters 10, 15 and 25. At 25.2 the sequence is most likely A, B, C, D but at Ching 18 and 26.3 it is A, B, D, C. And at 25.4 the sequence is reversed: “Right Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”. So, what is the sequence at 25.4? …
If you are unwilling to “Do what you Can Do (A1ptA1)” you are not even trying to understand Lao Tzu’s lessons. What is the “Reverse($l)” of A, B, D, C? …
It is C, D, B, A. Unless we realize that the sequence in which the “sources”, or parts of the tetrad appear means something, we will not pay attention to what Lao Tzu is trying to teach us. Even the AUTHOR tells us the truth once in a while:
1:7.4,2: “All learning involves attention and study at some level.” Why does he tell us that? …
Because to learn anything you must pay attention. I shall leave you with that lesson. …
=====================================================
40.2: “ReceptiviTy(Joer), Tao’S Usefulness (A1_Zus).”
. To find out what Lao Tzu meant by: “Jo Chê Tao Chih Young”, we have to find out what the five characters in it mean. This is no different from what we have to do with the COURSE because not all words in it mean what they mean in English.
. At he end of the last section, below this one, I have given you the concordance of Jo(Jo). If you have done your homework, you now have something to compare my work with. If you came up with something different from what I came up with, it doesn’t mean that you are the one that is wrong. Most of what I give you here are untested theories (B) The value of true or false theories is that they …
give you something to test in practice (D). The “Usefulness” of the work we are doing on the COURSE would be demonstrated when the truth, you have learned here, enables you to deprogram friends or relatives that have been programmed by the AUTOR.
. The First chapter Jo57 is in, is Ching
03: The rulers in an “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn_Z85) ….
. . Weaken Their Will (Jo_H#g).” Here Jo means what it means in Chinese
. . Weakening people’s will is what social engineers do.
36: “If you Want to Weaken It (41YÜJo_Z) then
. . Necessarily, you Must Strengthen It (PI$o57_Z)” first.
. The reason we are looking for an alternative meaning of Jo is because the context of Ching 40.2 demands a different meaning. Why would Wing translate “Jo Chê” as “Receptivity” if one of the dictionary equivalents is demanded by the context? …
55: Here we are told that the “Bones(@c)” of a baby are “Soft(Jo)”. As in the COURSE, standard equivalents and the alternative “meaning” of a word can be used interchangeably.
76: “A-person That-is (mn_Z) Alive Ye (SgYe) is
. . Soft and Tender (JuJo). when
. . He is Dead Ye (_H78Ye) he becomes Hard and Rigid (#y57). …. Thus(KU) for the
. . Hard and Rigid Ones (#y57er) Death is Their Teacher (78_Zâi). while for the
. . Soft and Tender Ones (JuJo) Life is Their Teacher (Sg_Zâi).”
. While Jo still means what it means in Chinese, there is a “Subtle(Jo)” lesson in this one for us. Can you see it? …
Subtle lessons are more “Useful(us)” than obvious answers to our questions. Why? …
Because they cause us to think. If you want to learn how to think then just reading (C) answers will not do it. If you want to lean to think then you have to think. You have to answer the questions yourself. “Practice(pr)” makes “Perfect(cm)”. So what is the “Subtle” hint here at Ching 76? …
If you test a theory (B) in practice (D) and it doesn’t work then it is useless. It is as good as “Dead(78)”. But if it works as predicted then it is “Useful(us)”. A true theory is “alive(Sg)”. It has the “Potential(pt)” for “Teaching(âi)” us the “Truth(A1)”. The reason I can give you an inaccurate equivalent for T’u(âi) is because you can look up the dictionary equivalents yourself. This is why Wing and J.Wu have accompanied their translation by the standard text they have used.
78 is the last chapter with Jo in it: It starts with a reference to the Law of Correspondence. As above, in “Heaven, so Below (Tn_-), on earth.
. Nothing is Softer and Weaker Than Water (MOJUJOto@8).” What Lao Tzu says about “Water(@8)” is straight forward, so any translation will do. But the last sentence of this chapter deserves more attention: Properly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l).” …
The more obvious meaning refers to those passages in which a true statement is followed by its opposite, like:
“True Words are Not Beautiful (09C2PU%b);
.Beautiful Words are Not True (%bC2PU09).” By “Reversing($l) “Truth(09)” and “Beauty(%b)”. Our teacher is telling us that truth (B) is the opposite of beauty (A).
. Here is another example: “KnowErs Don’t Talk (knerPUC2” How do you reverse that? …
“TalkErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn.” What is our teacher telling us here? …
That “KnowErs are Not Talkers (KnerPUC2). Philosophers (B) are on level B of Plato’s “Line” and communicators (C) are on level C. What else is he telling us? …
That philosophy (B) is not politics (C) As A and B are opposites so B and C are opposites. As Lao Tzu said”Rrepeatedly(@1)”: As above, in “Heaven, so.Below (Tn_-)” on earth. This knowledge comes in handy, it is “Useful(us)” when studying the PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM, EXISTENTIAL PHENOMENOLOGY and the COURSE. The authors of the first two books reject spiritualism (A), idealism (B) and materialism (D). By rejecting a valid philosophy the authors are saying: But we are not wrong. We are the opposite of the philosophies that are wrong. By calling the philosophy on level C “verbalism”, I have identified it but verbalists (C) wouldn’t call themselves that.
. Verbalists are Lao Tzu’s “WordErs(C2er) they Don’t Know (PUkn)” it all. But they can use “verbiage (pg145)” to hide that fact.
. The AUTHOR of the third book uses “verbiage” to intentionally deceive his readers. What could Lao Tzu have told us about him by: “Right Words Likely Reverse? ...
. In the next section we will return to the book that was given me as a challenge by somebody who cares about music (A) but not about philosophy (B). Let me find some homework for you in that book:
Pg. 144: “Aristotle’s philosophy no longer conceived the essences [of Plato] as lying in the ideal world [B] but placed them in the real world” (D).
. . .A . . . . Aristotle was Plato’s student. He has wrapped his teacher’s
D . + . B . . “Divided Line (at 509d of his Republic)” around the cross.
. . .C . . . . He was the “KnowEr(kner)” (B), while his teacher was a “WordEr(C2er” who had a vision (A) of the truth. It can be expected that thinkers (B) find flaws in the words of “TalkErs(C2er)”. Aristotle has criticized his teacher but he has used the truth, Plato has described so well, without giving him credit for it.
. The all important question I want to leave you with now is: How can the Aristotelian tetrad help us to come up with an integral philosophy consisting of the four valid philosophies? …
The Aristotelian four causes are: Final (A), Formal (B), Efficient (C) and Material (D). …
Hint: The four phases in the IBM computer programming system are: “Job-description” (A), “Job-analysis” (B), “Coding” (C) and “Execution” (D). That should give you enough to think (B) about. …
===========================================================
. Steiner begins chapter 2 of his PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM with a poem from Goethe. Poetry (A) is the purest form of revelation because our intellect can’t distort it. Poetry (A) is above the intellect (B), that’s why the intellect can’t touch it. The lower cannot comprehend the higher.
. Goethe said that there are two souls in us. The one is clinging to this material world, while “The other strongly lifts itself from dust
To yonder high ancestral spheres.”
. This phenomenological fact gives rise to two of the four authentic philosophies. Sometimes this dyad is called “SPIRIT and MATTER, sometimes SUBJECT and OBJECT, sometimes THINKING and PENOMENON.” I am using Lindeman’s translations here. “In that the human being experiences himself as ‘I,’ he cannot but think of this ‘I’ as being on the side of the SPIRIT; and in that he sets the world over against this ‘I,’ he must reckon to this world the world of perception given to the senses, the MATERIAL world. Man places himself thereby into the polarity of spirit and matter. He must do this all the more since his own body belongs to the material world. The ‘I’ belongs in this way to the spiritual as a part of it; the MATERIAL things and processes that are perceived by the senses belong to the ‘world.’ All the riddles relating to spirit and matter must be found again by man within the fundamental riddle of his own being.”
. This was a long quote, but Steiner has stated the problem, which is given to us to be solved by us. And Steiner has stated it so clearly that I just couldn’t quote any less than that. There is also a subtle reference to the Yin Yang symbol. Can you see it? …
. “METERIALISM can never provide a satisfactory explanation of the world. For every attempt at an explanation must begin with one’s forming THOUGHTS for oneself about the phenomenon of the world.”
. “How do matters stand with the spiritualistic view? The pure SPIRITUALIST denies matter in its independent existence and apprehends it only as product of spirit. If he applies this world view to solving the riddle of his own human nature, he is, in doing so, driven into a corner.”
. Neither the existential phenomenologists nor Steiner have applied the Aristotelian tetrad to solving the riddle of the world with us in it. “We are, therefore, reliant on the outer world. The most extreme spiritualist, or if you will, the thinker presenting himself as extreme spiritualist [A] through absolute idealism [B], is Johan Gotlieb Fichte. He attempts to derive the whole edifice of the world out of the’I.’ What he has actually achieved thereby is a magnificent THOUGHT PICTURE of the world without any content of experience.” Can you relate this statement to the tetrad? …
The customer’s (A) “job-description” is “without any content of experience”. Why? … Because the demand (A) has not been supplied (B-C-D) yet.
. Remember that Fichte was also mentioned in our book for the same reason. Fichte would be the best example of a spiritualist philosopher. I came across some some things he was saying that couldn't have been produced by the intellect (B), it must have come through his soul (A) as poetry is coming through the poets, Kavaiyas (A) in Sanskrit.
. “With respect to all these standpoints we must note that the basic and original polarity comes to meet us first of all within our own consciousness. It is we who detach ourselves from the mother ground of nature [here we come to the AUTHOR’s “separation”], and place ourselves as ‘I’ over against the ‘world. Goethe expresses this classically in his ,Nature,’ …. : ‘We live in the midst of her (nature) and are foreign to her. She speaks unceasingly to us and does not betray her secret.’ But Goethe also knows the reverse side: ‘Human beings are all within her and she within all human beings.’
. If you have caught the reference to the Yin Yang symbol before then you have no problem catching it here again.
. Even though Steiner is also into “Verbalism” (C), I find this chapter easier to understand than the book I got. I believe that the book was given me as a challenge. There are no accidents, as they say, and Steiner helps me to deal with it.
. Here comes one more quote to help us to conclude the work we have done on this chapter on a positive note:
. “We must find the way back to it again. A simple consideration can show us the way. We have, it is true, torn ourselves from nature; but we must nevertheless have taken something over with us into our own being [Can you see the Yin Yang symbol again?]. We must seek out this being of nature [the eternal] within us, and then we will also find the connection again. ….We can find nature outside us only when we first know it WITHIN us. What is akin to it in our own being will be our guide [but the AUTHHOR also uses it to “guide” us]. Our course is thereby sketched out for us.”
. How can we make practical use of this advise? …
By intentionally repeating the truth we get from books, from conversations and from experience, we are stepping down our knowledge (B) of the truth to representations (C) of the truth. This is then the thinking you do in your heart. In this way you become the truth. Let me repeat Ching 71.2 again:
“Not Knowing that deep down you Know (Puknkn) is Sick(@p)”.
. As you can intentionally cause the “truth” to take over in you, so the AUTHOR can intentionally cause his “untruth” to take you over. It does take a science to accomplish this the science does exist. Your mind (C) can be programmed to do its computations (C) automatically with Automatic Energy (E6). And don’t think that the social engineers don’t know this.
. Because the AUTHOR knows this, his COURSE can be used as a textbook. Why? …
Because he repeats the falsehoods, which we have to “correct”, so consistently. We are repeating the same “meaning” time and again, and in this way we are necessarily stepping down our knowledge of the truth to representations (C) of the truth.
. Let us return to the book I got. On page 158 we come “to William James”. He is the founder of pragmatism (D). Pragmatism is the best example of materialism because it is the most useful form of materialism. James said: “True is that which is ‘fruitful’.” “’True’ is that which ‘works’,”. If a theory (B) is tested (D) and it works as expected then it is true. If a theory works then it is useful; if not then not. So “Truth” is what is “useful”. And that brings us to Ching
40.2: “SubtleTy(Joad), Tao’S Usefulness (A1_Zus).” We now have to find out what Jo57 means in the Ching. The dictionary equivalents are: “Weak, pliable, weak of purpose”. From Star we get: “tenderness / weak / gentle / yielding / soft / fragile / 'receptivity’ (Wing). etym: ‘wing of a bird’ + ‘wing of a bird’”. There are two wings in the picture. The concordance we get for Jo is: 03, 36, 40, 55, 76 and 78. If you have one of more translations of the Ching, there is the homework for you. …
=======================================================
. To replace the disinformation of the AUTHOR with the truth, I need Philosophy. Even though Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” is at the heart of it, my philosophy is not one of the big official philosophies like “Spiritualistic monism” (A), Idea (B)lism, Verbalism (C) and Materialism (D). What, then, is it? …
The one I keep talking about in this blog is all of them. It is some kind of DIVISION OF LABOUR in which every valid philosophy carries out its own specific function. The reason I decided to bring some of the big philosophies into this blog is because a musician friend comes into the studio two Sundays ago and gives me EXISTENTIAL PHENOMENOLOGY by William A. Luijpen Ph.D. “This is for you.” he said. How did he know that it was?. Last Sunday I got back at him and tried to discuss some of the ideas from it, which I was able to understand, and he couldn’t care less. He is not interested. So how did he know that this is the book that challenges me to bring Plato’s “Line” in line with official philosophy? …
When things like that happen, I believe that it is synchronicity, and if I don’t appreciate it then there will be no more of it. This world is like a school, and if we don’t listen to the teacher then he stops teaching. This applies directly to the study of the Tao Te Ching: If you don’t accept Lao Tzu as your teacher then he can’t accept you as his student.
. “Not to Value Your Teacher (PUKu_HäT) …. Is to be on the wrong road, however intelligent one may be (J.Wu).” So HOW do I bring the book, that was given to me, in line with the Tao Te Ching?
. Starting at the bottom of page 43, I will quote about half a page of the book. If you let “the Absolute Subject” and “the ‘great’ impersonal Subject”, be the “Great Tao (TAA1)” and “the ‘little’ subject …. and the many distinct subjects”, be the little “Taos, which are part of the Great (A1TA)” Tao, then you don’t need my interpretation of the following quote.
. “Spiritual monism, then, cannot avoid sacrificing the distinct identity of the ‘little’ I to the Absolute Subject. The place of the ‘little’ subject which any real subject is, is taken by the ‘great’ impersonal Subject, and the many distinct subjects are viewed as particularizations, dialectic moments or functions of that impersonal Subject. The consequences of this way of thinking are typically illustrated by Ficte’s Absolute Ego and Hegel’s Absolute Spirit. …. But the Absolute Subject is assumed to think and act in and through the ‘little’ subject; hence, at first, the claim is made that it is REALLY THE ABSOLUTE which acts and thinks, and not the ‘little’ subject.” …
Try to bring that last sentence in line of what I keep repeating here in this blog. …
In the E3-A-B “TriAd(_3ad)”, E3 is the outcome of the E1-E2-E3 triad. A (E4) is the connective and B (E5) is the outcome. B is a stepped down vision (A). It is a thought (B).
. In the A-B-C triad A is the initiating impulse, B is the connective and C is the outcome. On level C the outcome is always in language (C). If the process is not to stop on level C, language has to take the form of instructions for D. D is the computer in computer programming, and the subcontractors in the construction business. D must be able to understand and execute the instruction. That is as far down as you can bring any philosophy (B)..
. I have here restated, by means of J.G. Bennett’s systematics, what I have quoted from the book. Thinkers use thinking tools the way carpenters use woodworking tools. Systematics is a power tool. And I don’t even know it well enough. I also know very little of official philosophy. What I know about representations (C) and philosophy (B) is from Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM. Representations have more to do with psychology (C) than with philosophy (B).
. In sociology religion would be on level A, philosophy on level B, politics on level C and economics on level D. We have the Hindu division of labour here, before it was corrupted by the Brahmin (B) caste. In Steiner's “Three-fold Social Order” his “economic sphere” is on level D, his “political sphere” is on level C and his “cultural sphere” is a mix of levels B and A. That's why it doesn't work, and if a theory (B) doesn't work then there is a flaw in it.
. As each of the four castes, or classes makes its specific contribution to society as a whole so each of the four authentic philosophies make their contributions to philosophy as a whole
. On page 35 of our book, we have “MATERIALISM” (D) as a subheading:
. “All materialistic systems agree in considering man as the result of processes and forces, just as things are the result of processes and forces.” On page 37 we come a bit closer to what I am trying to get at:
. “Materialism attempts to explain man---to express what man is---but fails because it indicates only one aspect of the totality of man, albeit an essential one” in “Phenomenoloy”. Following Plato, the Hindus, the Buddha, J.G. Bennett, Lao Tzu and others, it can be seen that all of the four authentic philosophies are “an essential one”. Each of the four is like a link in a chain. Break one and you break the chain. The system as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The “Total Sum of the parts of a Carriage Is-not a Carriage $0#5âsWUâs).” The whole (tetrad) emerges through its parts and, having emerged (not before), gives meaning to them. To “emerge” means to work as the IBM computer programming system did, and as the construction business does.
. Let us now find “SPIRITUALISM” in the book. It is on page 42:
. “The subject’s relative priority can also be explicated in the following way. The world of things reveals itself always and of necessity as the NON-I.” The “NON-I” is Wu(WU) in the Ching and the Neiye. On page 43 we get:
. “In spiritualistic monism this way of absolutizing the importance of the subject becomes a reduction of the being of material things to the subject’s being. In other words, the ‘detotalization of reality’ goes here in exactly the opposite direction than that taken by materialism. While materialism disregards the importance of subjectivity or considering the latter not worth mentioning, in spiritualistic monism the density of material things evaporates into the ‘thin air’ of contents of consciousness.”
. In light of Hinduism, systematics and other theories, spiritualism (A) is as valid as the other three “sources’, or parts of the tetrad. Even though semiotics (B-C-D) has been made to “disappear”, it is a working theory (B).
. Tomorrow, we will look at what Steiner tells us about spiritualism (A) and materialism (D) in chapter two of his PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM. If you have his book, you have some homework to do. ...
=======================================================
. I have deleted the content of this file to make room for these new sections. The April sections I have deleted from this file were from 2010, the April sections from 2011 are in file #1. The homework from the January 13 section was
2:5.5,2: “This means you recognize that mind is the only creative level, and that its errors are healed by the Atonement.” …
The question I left you with was: “On what ‘level’ is ‘mind’ here”? …
It can be on level B as well as C. Under what conditions? …
Since, according to the AUTHOR, our intellect (B) is the only part of us that causes “errors” the more obvious “meaning” we are supposed to see is “mind” (B). …
That is just another bit of ‘depreciation’. But under what conditions do we have C? …
Our mind (C) is either programmed by our own intellect or by …
the AUTHOR’s intellect. As programming makes the computer “creative” so programming makes our mind (C) creative.
. You are more likely to notice the hidden “meanings” of the AUTHOR’s sentences when you are, automatically (E6), looking for both meanings in his sentences. You may not find two “meanings” in all sentences, but, from what I have seen so far, you will find it in most of them.
2:5.5,2b: “…. and that its [the intellect's] errors are healed by the Atonement.” …
Whatever thoughts your properly functioning intellect can produce, the AUTHOR can “heal” them with his program, the “Atonement”.
2:5.5,5: “The message you then give to them [to “others”] is the truth that their minds are similarly constructive, and their miscreations cannot hurt them.
2:5.5,5a: The minds (C) of others are indeed “similarly construct”ed as you own is. Every human mind is programmable and faster than the intellect.
2:5.5,5b: After the AUTHOR has programmed your mind (C) the programming of your own mind (B), can no longer “hurt” the AUTHOR. Why? ...
Because it has been “healed”.
2:5.6,1: “It should be emphasized again that the body does not learn any more than it creates.” …
Why do students of the piano or the guitar have to repeat the same exercises? …
When the body has learned its lesson it is called muscle-memory. Why does the AUTHOR repeat the same “untruth” again and again? …
. Our body (D) is the most mechanical part of us. It is furthest removed from Creative Energy (E3). Our soul (A (E4)) is next to it. After that comes our intellect (B (E5)). After that comes our mind (C (E6)). E6 is Automatic Energy. That’s why the mind is programmable. The mind is one “level” above the body (D (E7)). Where the mind is analogous to computer software (C), the bio-computer is computer hardware (D).
. But for the whole (A-B-C-D) to be creative each of its parts has to be creative. The parts are like the links of a chain. Break one and you break the chain. Could it be that the AUTHOR doesn’t know this? …
2:7.6,3: The “Oneness transcends the sum of its parts.”
. If the AUTHOR doesn’t know better, then what he has dictated is a mistake but if he knows the truth and what he has dictated is untrue then he gives us intentional disinformation. Would Jesus do that? …
2:5A.12,1: “A clear distinction between what is created and what is made is essential. (2) All forms of healing rest on this fundamental correction in level perception.” ...
. The purest creative impulse comes into our world of time and space through A as vision, through (B) as thought, through C as word in the form of instructions for D, which, by being executed by D, is manifested in physical (D) form (B).
. When the truth, the AUTHOR is trying to obscure, is clearly understood then “obscurantism” is seen for what it is.
2:6.2,10: “Whenever you are afraid [when you use your intellect], it is a sure sign that you have allowed your mind [B] to miscreate and have not allowed me to guide it.”
. The intellect is routinely blamed for making you “afraid” and repeatedly said “to miscreate”. This is just another example of ‘depreciation’. But you will not see it if you don’t look for what the AUTOR doesn’t want you to see.
. How does the AUTHOR “guide” the intellect? …
The mind (C) is programmable and faster than the intellect. And knowing this is essential to make use of the mind. And that goes for us as well. …
2:6.4,6: “You are much too tolerant of mind [B] wandering, and are passively condoning your mind’s miscreations.” ‘Depreciation’.
2:6.9,5 “The mind is very powerful, and never loses its creative force. (6) It never sleeps.” …
Again which mind is meant here? Mind (B) or mind (C)? …
That it “never sleeps” gives us the answer. Steiner tells us that thought must be willed. If thought is not willed then the intellect sleeps. Now, what is the “creative force” of the mind? …
. I shall leave you with that question. ….
. There are still about 70 hits for “creat” left to work on. Working on them is valuable but things are getting monotonous. So I will interrupt the monotony with a bit of philosophy (B). Philosophy is not everybody’s cup of tea, especially if a friend or relative is hooked by the AUTHOR and you want to get him unhooked or deprogrammed.
. I will continue again with 2:6.9,5 after the philosophy. You can skip it by FINDING 2:6.9,5…
=====================================================
The homework at the beginning of the last section, below this one was on 2:3.5,2. I said there: “You can’t get an answer [the right answer] without the right question.” But the question I came up with is confusing. If I did it intentionally, we would have here a good example of the obscurantism the AUTHOR does so consistently. Try to find it. …
. These mistakes happen because the syntactic (C) work I have to do is too much for me. It is not my dharma. It tires me out. Did you find and correct the mistake? …
The “’separation’ …. is one of the four causes of the existence of ‘the world’”. …
The corrected question is …
How can the “world” be looked upon “as a means for healing the separation”? …
We have here a good definition of what “healing” means in the COURSE.
. The homework for this section is:
2:5.7,1: “Corrective learning begins with the awakening of spirit and the turning away from the belief in physical sight.” …
2:5.7,1a: “Corrective learning” is learning to undo what your properly functioning intellect is producing.
2:5.7,1b: The “awakening” means what it means in English, “spirit” does not.
2:5.7,1c: “….turning away from …. Physical sight” means what it means in English. If you find nothing wrong with that “belief” then you will swallow the hook the way uncritical readers can be expected to swallow it.
2:8.2,4: “It [judgement (B)] was brought into being only after the separation, when it became one of the many learning devices to be built into the overall plan.” …
. “BUDDHI, …. the Intelligence that determines what is truth.(Suitra 14 of THE HOLY SCIENCE).” Judgement was not brought into being “after the separation” it is the contribution of the intellect to the creation of the world. All “Four(_4)” divisions of the “Big Tao (TAA1)” make their particular contributions to supplying God’s demand. Our soul (A), intellect (B), mind (C) and body (D) contribute with vision (A), thought (B), word (C) and deed (D) to fulfilling your dharma. The truth does not fit into the AUTHOR’s “overall plan”.
3:1.4,6: “To terrorize is to attack, and this results in rejection of what the teacher [the AUTOR] offers. (7) The result is learning failure”. …
. If what the AUTHOR offers is that flawed, it deserves to fail.
3:1.7,8: “The Atonement is therefore the perfect lesson [program]. (9) It is the final demonstration that all the other lessons I taught are true [for those who have allowed the AUTHOR to program them]. (10) If you can accept this one generalization now, there will be no need to learn from many smaller lessons. (11) You are released from all errors if you believe this.” …
If you can “believe” that you intellect is producing “all errors” then you will be “released from [the cause of] all errors”.
If you read this passage critically then you don’t need my interpretation. This is all the FIND function has come up with for “learn” in the first three chapters. I will now list the advantages the FIND function has for us. Hopefully, you have noticed a few of them yourself.:
1. We learn the alternative meaning of keywords.
2. Knowing the meaning of words helps us to understand the sentences they are in.
3. Understanding a sentence helps us to understand the words in it.
. . The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them.
4. It gives us a sequence to follow that is more useful than the ordinary sequence. By following through with this approach for the rest of the chapter, the alternative meanings will become representations (C) because of the repetitions te AUTHOR is doing. However, you learn the very opposite of what he wants you to learn.
5. This last advantage caused me to come across a fifth one. …
Repetitions follow each other more closely and are, therefore, more noticeable. If you go back to April in file #2 you will see that I didn’t come up with this approach overnight. I will follow this approach even if we look for the same words more than once. The idea is to repeat the alternative meaning just as the AUTHOR causes the uncritical reader to read them. What is the difference between thinking (B) about what the AUTHOR says and blindly believing (C) it? …
By repeating to interpret the AUTHOR’s sentences, the same “meanings” become representations (C). If you repeat to “passively condon”e what the AUTHOR wants you to condone, his lies become representations; if you repeat the truth then …
The truth becomes a representation. If you don’t stop to think when you see the three dots at the end of te line, you are not doing what the AUTHOR doesn’t want you to do. …
. You can also learn much from the PROTOCOLS OF ZION. Just Google some of the keywords there. Back to “creat”.
2:4.4,3: “It is a second misstep to attempt to heal it [the body] through non-creative agents.” …
According to the AUTHOT, our intellect is a “non-creative agent”. ‘Depreciation’.
2:5.1,5: “None of these errors is meaningful [to the uncritical reader], because the miscreations of the mind [B] do not really exist.” What we are doing here, with our intellect, does “not really exist”, if you can believe that.
2:5.1,6: “This recognition [the belief (C) that our intellect does “not really exist”] is a far better protective device than any form of level confusion.” …
This “protective device” only works if you “accept” what the AUTHOR is saying without questioning it. Part of the AUTHOR’s obscurantism is “level confusion”. When the AUTHOR does it you are supposed to passively condone it; when he blames the intellect for it, you are not only to “correct” the “confusion” but to get rid of the intellect as well.
. We have already worked on 2:5.1,9 to 2:5.1,11 when looking for “learn”. The “meaning” is: “The body does not exist …. It is obvious, then, that” we should “give up”, or get rid of, the intellect altogether. After repeating so consistently that the intellect does “not really exist” why are we supposed to “give up” what does “not really exist”? …
Since the AUTHHOR is omniscient how come he contradicts himself so often? …
In the “eternal” you see the big picture, but not the concrete details we can see and touch here. The “separation” is necessary to make our experience (D) of the world possible. It also makes it possible for us to learn about social engineering from the AUTHOR. He can’t see the details we are seeing and therefore he does more harm to the CIA etc. than good.
2:5.2,1: “Magic is the mindless or miscreative use of the mind” (B). …
We have here a definition of “Magic”.
2:5.2,3: “The very fact that you are afraid [that you use your intellect] makes your mind vulnerable to miscreations.” It makes your mind (C) vulnerable to the programming of your own intellect. We also have a definition of “miscreation” here. We are supposed to get rid of the cause of “miscreation” and passively condone the AUTHOR’s “creation”.
2:5.2,5: “Under these conditions [when our intellect works properly], it is safer for you to rely temporarily on physical healing devices [on ordinary medicine], because you cannot misperceive them as your own creations.” …
To know when you do your own thinking is, according to the AUTOR, to “misperceive” what you are perceiving. In other words: We are not supposed to trust what your senses tell us; but to trust the AUTHOR instead.
2:5.5,2: “This [accepting the Atonement] means you recognize [believe] that mind is the only creative level, and that its errors are healed by the Atonement.” …
On what “level” is “mind” here”?…
======================================================
Peter Franke, 914 – 20 West Lodge Avenue, Toronto ON M6K 2T4
