| Author |
Message |
   
Phi_spiral
Member
Post Number: 293
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2008 - 11:50 am: | 
|
Matthew to Markc from the Translation thread: “Thinking is not an optional means of approaching problems--it is the only way. Even with regard to feelings, one must, as that talk therapy study I showed long ago demonstrates, think consciously about one's feelings in order to control them and use them. If you want to discuss feelings, or your feelings about things, perhaps you should be more honest about them.”
In the modern world where there are so many problems, one is apt to lose great feeling. I mean by that word “feeling”, not sentiment, not emotionalism, not mere excitement, but that quality of perception, the quality of hearing, listening, the quality of feeling a bird singing in a tree, the movement of a leaf in the sun. To feel things greatly, deeply, penetratingly is very difficult for most of us, because we have so many problems. Whatever we seem to touch turns into a problem. And, apparently there’s no end to man’s problems, and he seems utterly incapable of resolving them, because the more the problems exist, the less the feelings become.
I mean by “feeling” the appreciation of the curve of a branch, the squalor, the dirt on the road, to be sensitive to the sorrow of another, to be in the state of ecstasy when we see a sunset. These are not sentiments, these are not mere emotions. Emotion and sentiment or sentimentality turned to cruelty, they can be used by society; and when there is sentiment, sensation, then one becomes a slave to society. But one must have great feelings. The feeling for beauty, the feeling for a word, the silence between two words, and the hearing of a sound clearly – all that generates feeling. And one must have strong feelings, because it is only the feelings that make the mind highly sensitive. Billy discusses this in his teaching of empfindung.
Sensitivity in its highest form is intelligence. Without sensitivity to everything – to one’s own sorrows; to the sorrow of a group of people, of a race; to the sorrow of everything that is --, unless one feels and has the feeling highly sensitivized, one cannot possibly solve any problem. And we have many problems, not only at the physical level, the economic level, the social level, but also at the deeper levels of one’s own being – problems that apparently we are not capable of solving. I am not talking of the scientific problems, or the problems of mechanical inventions, but of human problems: of our sorrows, of despair, of the narrow spirit of the mind, of the shallowness of one’s own thinking, of the constant repetitive boredom of life, the routine of going to office every day. And the many problems that exist, both consciously and unconsciously, make the mind dull, and therefore the mind loses this extraordinary sensitivity. And when we lose sensitivity, we lose intelligence. And without sensitivity, a race degenerates.
Regards
Bob |
Kingman
Member
Post Number: 372
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2008 - 05:54 pm: |
|
Bob,
That is an incredible post.
You have a very poetic grasp for one of the main underlying conditions that humanity is desperate to correct. Compassion becomes faint when the mind dulls.
If the scene before a modern human isn't video game quality, or even news hour sensational, the value of an experience is seriously discounted. We are becoming, 'Comfortably Numb', to a certain degree. The amount of time people now give to an issue, such as the Anti-War Movement, will be impressive at first. But instead of gaining momentum, (which should be the case if we were more in-tuned to our real spiritual consciousness, not the phony religious servitude to 'God') our intensity drops off the radar as all the other worldly concerns are pushed to the front of our limited viewing screens.
I notice these insensitive positions more and more in the actions of people. We can say, "It's all the media's doing!", or blame a political party, or maybe the education system. But it remains that our family values have steadily dropped off the agenda of our technically advancing society, at least here in America it seems.
It's posts such as yours Bob that bring others to think more about what is missing from societies consciousness.
a friend in america
Shawn
|
Matthew_deagle
Member
Post Number: 133
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 01:50 am: |
|
Bob,
You are wholly correct in what you semantically refer to: namely, human beings must not only focus on the form of their thoughts, but also on their being (Sein)--this is what constitutes Bewusstsein, and allows that thoughts can evolve and be created, etc.
You do misuse terminology, however, despite your excellent prose. For instance, sentiment actually means the same thing as 'feeling'=Gefuehl, and Emfindung means something entirely different, which, however, stimulates the creation of fine feelings/sentiments, through which one then senses in the spiritual/ghostly realm.
Sentiment, from sentire, refers to a sense, just as Fuehlen is a sense in the consciousness. Sentiation would be a possible English word for "Empfindung", while spiritual or ghostly sentiation would be more accurate, since this sense is of electromagnetic energy in the spiritual/ghostly level of existence, through the Gemuet, which may be called the "spirit-mind" or "ghostly mind". Emotionen, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the feelings/sentiments, but rather emerge in the brain due to meditation upon thoughts which then form self-sustaining, one might say 'memetic', self-defensive complexes in both the mental state and the physical brain tissue. I wonder what Richard Dawkins will say when this connection between e.g. temporal lobe seizures and memes is made?
Otherwise, clearly, yours was a good post, if somewhat inaccurate, and it touches upon a very foundational and important matter.
What can be said further on this subject is that sensed thoughts, or sentiments/feelings, are a direct consequence of thought, indeed, a portion of the semantic of these thoughts (if they are viewed as linguistic units of semantics and syntax). As the spiritual/ghostly evolution progresses, the thoughts become finer, more intricate, more intense, and the speed of thought becomes ever faster. Thus, the feelings become ever finer, more intense, and more energetic. For this reason, conscious control of feelings becomes only more important as a person spiritually/ghostily evolves--and this can only be achieved when a person uses their sense of feeling to understand their thoughts and act correctly upon them.
Salome,
- Matthew |
Phi_spiral
Member
Post Number: 295
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 09:25 am: |
|
Matthew,
I see how misunderstanding has taken a foothold, so allow me to clarify my thoughts. After all, in a forum of this kind, the act of imparting, the act of listening and the act of understanding are of great importance. Especially when we are going into areas that require a great deal of understanding, not merely linguistically, there also has to be that communion which comes when ones goes beyond the words and understands the whole significance of the words, their nature and their meaning. Then, perhaps, a forum of this kind will have some special meaning and significance.
It is my understanding that Empfindung is the spiritually based feeling. It is the ‘feeling’ that draws on the accumulated wisdom from one’s spirit-form utilizing this knowledge from the Gemüt directly to the psyche. Although I gave examples of both Gefühle and Empfindung, it is Empfindung that is the neutral of the two and factors more prominently into problem solving and it is this dynamic of problem solving that was the thrust of that post. Gefühle is only one polarity, whereas, Empfindung is balanced.
So the use of Empfindung in my post was exact, appropriate and purposeful. I was hoping to get beyond a simple textbook understanding to see how it applies to our everyday life - even in its most subtle forms. Empfindung is the subtle non-emotional aspect of ‘feelings’ portrayed in the post.
Regards
Bob |
Matthew_deagle
Member
Post Number: 134
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 03:42 pm: |
|
Empfindung is indeed the sense in the spiritual realm, and this actually could be called 'spiritual feeling', as the Empfindung is translated into a feeling in the psyche when the consciousness becomes aware of it (a fine feeling).
I didn't say that it was incorrect, but that it was somewhat inaccurate especially to use the word 'sentiment' to mean 'brain-based emotion', when sentiment implies a sense, which is what feeling constitutes, and not an uncontrollable impulse.
Yes, indeed, Empfindungen are perceived as fine feelings when translated by the "Sinn"/sense into psychic excitations, but it is good to clarify that these in themselves, more purely, are not simply psychic/sentimental feelings, but senses within the spiritual realm. The sense of Empfindung as fine feeling is therefore somewhat synaesthetic, comparable to the fact that music arouses sentiments/feelings or even images, colours, and tactile sensations, although it is, itself, only sound.
Salome,
- Matthew |
Scott
Moderator
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 12-1999
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 06:11 pm: |
|
THIS SECTION IS ENTITLED HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS, LET'S GET BACK TO IT. |
Matthew_deagle
Member
Post Number: 135
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 09:23 pm: |
|
Scott,
Human relationships seem to have lot to do with the senses, particularly the feelings and Empfindung/sentiation. For instance, binding love is based upon Empfindung/sentiation, and harmony of the psyche is a matter of feelings.
Salome,
- Matthew |
Scott
Moderator
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 12-1999
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 11:23 pm: |
|
Matthew,
Yes that may be true, but the intent of this section was for the discussion of human relationships on this planet. The last couple of posts had nothing to do with that aspect. I do think you know what I mean.
Thank you
Scott |
Phi_spiral
Member
Post Number: 297
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 03:42 pm: |
|
Matthew,
I have posted a response under Spiritual Teachings>>Miscellaneous
Bob |
Edward
Member
Post Number: 1222
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 06:13 am: |
|
Hi Adrian...
Will post and proceed further here...OK?
Well, I think every male individual should be quite aware and sure of himself
and his place, when proceeding himself into a (male-female) relationship
(marriage).
And know his place, in this relationship. And being the Provider/Breadwinner,
in such relationship. He should project himself, as a true man of the house,
and take good care of his wife and children. It is his 'duty' to do so; after
all, in marriage, he did make this precious agreement (or in a relationship,
in general).
So, before any type of 'bonding' the male should be sure of himself and his
role in the relationship. It should not be the other way around, as is the
case in many cases these days. Which I have encountered also, with
relationships, around me. And I slowly see the male loosing grip of the whole
male-female relationship/marriage. And see him lose his definition of
identity, as his role, as Man. [And become a - weakling -, harshly said.]
I am not saying, that the male should dominate the female, in the contrary,
there should be equilibrium within their relationship. If they both live in
accordance to the Creational directives(as Billy mentioned: Man Of The House),
this will reflect again, back...into their next incarnation; through/by the
regulating of (the) Creation.
These are just the guidelines within the framework of the Creation; and when
applied, Creation will make sure, true balance will manifest within their
male-female relation, once again.
But I must say, it does take a very strong male character to truly fulfill
this role/definition, though. And I know, there are such males whom do not fit
the profile, alas. That is why, I mentioned, that he must be very sure of
himself, when proceeding himself into a relationship. It is a very heavy task
and burden on him, at times. Male and female each have their role in life; and
what they...define as, in their existence. So, I am sure Creation KNOWS...what
she is doing.
"It takes two to tango, but...one is always leading the steps(male)!", as they
say. [And than, they both create a splendorous dance performance.]
Edward. |
Adysor
Member
Post Number: 110
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 01:23 pm: |
|
Hey Edward
"It takes two to tango, but...one is always leading the steps" I doesn't mean the man has to lead. A woman might have a more of a "man of the house" character than a normal man. If you suppress that, problems might occur. That's my opinion. I don't want to bring Creation into this talk because I don't know what it has to do with it. You speak so confiant about it as if you knew everything. I don't want to say that Billy lies or something....but if he says that the man should be the "man of the house" doesn't mean you have to take it for granted.
Btw, I'm totally for the man leading the familiy idea but I didn't like the way you approached the subject.
Peace.
Adrian.
|
J_rod7
Member
Post Number: 365
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 04:03 pm: |
|
*
***
Hello Adrian, and Greetings to All,
If we consider 'Bonding' from the aspect of the Union of Spirits, the 'Male' and the 'Female' share in any WORTHWHILE RELATIONSHIP from a position as EQUALS in a Partnership.
The Woman is NOT meant to be "Subservient' to the Man. The Man and the Woman each brings certain Strengths to the Relationship.
The Woman may, in fact, have a higher level of Intelligence than the Man. The Man may, in fact, be more Emotionally Mature than the Woman. "Who Lead Who" is a silly Question, considered from the aspects of EQUALITY of Spiritual Values.
As was said above, however: > "Creation will make sure, true balance will manifest within their male-female relation...", <
Well, that Opinion is just flat WRONG. That Thought implies that Creation interjects Itself into our Lives. Not SO. Such interjection would remove the Free Will from our Decision Process. If the right to Fail or Succeed is taken from the Equation, there would be no true Spiritual Evolution. This applies to Relationships, as well as every other step We make.
And Neither does this apply: > "into their next incarnation; through/by the regulating of (the) Creation." <.
By which, again, the Course of our Incarnations is NOT "Regulated" in any such manner.
As you have CORRECTLY expressed: > "I don't want to bring Creation into this talk because I don't know what it has to do with it." <
Human Men and Women have been forming bonding Relationships ever since We took Material Bodies. This with the Consideration for Each Other in the Mutual Share of Love, Over-Riding everything else or other 'Influences.' I speak from a position of having been happily Married some 30-Years now.
Salome
***
*
From One Eternal Spiritual Being to All Others,
Awaken to Your true Essential Being
J_rod7
|
Pathfinder
Member
Post Number: 35
Registered: 10-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 04:32 pm: |
|
if I can interject my thoughts here,
I would point out that in most cases, men are physically stronger than women.
In most cases women are more able to perform particular feats better than men. Which is why men are always getting into trouble over the way they do certain things. Its a matter of two different aptitudes and attitudes about accomplishment.
Therefore when it comes to the home and functions within it, men are just better off if they keep their mouths shut and do what they are told and how they are told to do it.
oops, did I say that out loud? i lost my train of thought there for a minute.
but men and women ARE different, without a doubt. And the way we look at accomplishment is usually quite different from the way that women do.
In the home I would say that if a couple loves each other, they share the load simply because they would feel compassion for their mate who may be overwhelmed at any particular time with a certain chore. not because its supposed to be their job as a man or woman.
But having said that when it comes to hunter- gatherer survival attributes, how many women are going to go out and jump on the back of a mammoth and ram a spear into its neck to make sure their wife and kids have meat tonight?
(Rosie O'Donnell excepted here!)
And how many men have the tolerance to care for six screaming babies all needing diapers changed at the same time? Thats why some of the baby lions get eaten.
there is something to be said for the nurturing talents of maternal instinct.
And there is also something to be said here regarding the physical strength of the man when needed to fulfil tasks that a woman simply cannot physically accomplish.
the two rely on each other in certain aspects of life, and that is where this whole dilemma stems from.
Not the fact that one should or shouldn't be doing a specific chore, but rather that a couple should be able to count on and rely on each other's various talents and abilities to successfully build their homelife.
I could no more sit back and watch my beautiful wife struggling over a chore when she is ready to drop from exhaustion than I could watch her walk in front of a speeding bus without doing something about it.
Isnt love supposed to a factor here?
"Therefore nothing may mislead him to un-truth and falseness, because his entire BEING is in the creational cognition of infinite truth."
Contact 18:62
|
Peter_brodowski
Member
Post Number: 456
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 08:39 pm: |
|
hey there pathfinder, mind if i share my 2 cents?
"Therefore when it comes to the home and functions within it, men are just better off if they keep their mouths shut and do what they are told and how they are told to do it."
my outlook of what a man is, is he is a provider, the inseminator, the supplier, the resource. a woman is the one needful of support, the one who gets support in whatever many ways and harnesses, uses that which is provided by the man.
when it comes to any situation, since the man is the naturally positive representation, the provider, it seems to me that the man should come up with ideas, the woman should listen and share her view and then they both take into account each other imput and try to make the original plan/suggestion as efficient as it can be. to me it would seem strange that a woman would be telling a man what to do and shut his mouth. although i dont condone violence against anyone, i would'nt suggest for any woman to tell their man to keep their mouth shut. that is rude and overly forcefull. and in some cases may result in violence.
"And how many men have the tolerance to care for six screaming babies all needing diapers changed at the same time?"
how many woman can you name that can?
i know women who cant even care for one child let alone 6. |
Adysor
Member
Post Number: 113
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 09:36 pm: |
|
Yea, Peter, I agree.
Btw, J_Rod, why do you type in fancy like that...it's ....funny.....to read. What's wrong with the normal way of writing? Just an off-topic comment :D
Adrian.
|
J_rod7
Member
Post Number: 368
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 02:23 am: |
|
*
***
Hi there Adrian,
Well, I'm not sure I understand what You mean by "fancy like that."
I do try to capitalize proper Nouns, and sometimes get a little carried away hitting that Shift Key.
I took a Course in Technical Writing in University, and what I learned there has influenced My writing Style. Then, otherwise, what is not Normal? I WOULD appreciate Your input.
Salome
***
*
From One Eternal Spiritual Being to All Others,
Awaken to Your true Essential Being
J_rod7
|
Pathfinder
Member
Post Number: 38
Registered: 10-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 03:34 am: |
|
I cannot see how you missed the sarcasm in that statement, so I won't make any attempt at clarification there.
But, it does seem that the sarcastic remark was the one you used to make your point and left out everything else I had to say so I am left supposing that there was a reason for that.
i have to disagree with you on this matter i guess.Unless you are prepared to say that creation does not make women with equal intelligence to man , than I would argue that women are designed with the same degree of intelligence as man and therefore what they have to say should be considered every bit as valuable.
I would not want to be the one to debate this with Semjase!
"Therefore nothing may mislead him to un-truth and falseness, because his entire BEING is in the creational cognition of infinite truth."
Contact 18:62
|
Borthwey
Member
Post Number: 45
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 03:32 pm: |
|
I don’t see the need to extrapolate directives and supposedly “creational” ways how things should be concerning male/female relationships just because one sex functions as an inseminator and the other as a receiver. The woman has the burden of carrying the pregnancy, that’s all. She could even not raise the children and leave that task for her progenitors, for example. There are many ways of doing things, man and women have their differences but I don’t think that there is a single “better” way to deal with them, it just depends on the place, the persons involved, etc.
Ultimately I think that every person should find a balance between passivity and assertiveness, and that a similar balance can be had in a relationship.
David |
Peter_brodowski
Member
Post Number: 457
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 05:43 pm: |
|
hey pathfinder
there is such thing as a bad joke. i caught the sarcasm.
"i have to disagree with you on this matter i guess.Unless you are prepared to say that creation does not make women with equal intelligence to man , than I would argue that women are designed with the same degree of intelligence as man and therefore what they have to say should be considered every bit as valuable. "
woman and man both earn their inteligence through life and it's experiences. both sexes have just as much potential as the other.
besides, i never said women are not as intelligent as men. when i was in highschool, girls were consistantly scoring higher grades on average, at the same time, women were the major source or cause of problems and arguments of various kinds.
what would there be to debate?
you speak like you know semjase on a personal level. what would be so unwanted about sharing opinions with a highly intelligent woman?
infact, consider the fact that intelligence is information learned and processed and understood by an individual.from that wisdom may be created. creation is not responsible for, as you say making man and women with equal intelligence.
and there is so many variable possibilities brought on in this regard by culture, place of living, and world matters, aswell as personal choices based on the indiviudals personality. |
Adysor
Member
Post Number: 116
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 05:53 pm: |
|
The child needs both parents. They need to be different, and they are, male and female. The mother is more compassionate towards his son/daughter and that's what he/she learns from her. The father shows authority and the child needs that too. If you take away the father, the child won't have much confidence, if you take the mother, he/she will be too stuborn and colder(as in feelings)... That's what someone told me. I can't have my own opinion on this because I don't have a child.
Adrian.
|
Peter_brodowski
Member
Post Number: 458
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 06:10 pm: |
|
hey there botherway,
i am under the impression that women and men have unique charachteristics that perhaps are there for more than one reason. which have their own unique application with pros and cons.
to state that pregnancy is a burden is something i cant agree with.
also, plejarens (if i recall reading)or even most inteligent races in our universe have female pilots, to a greater degree, if not entirely. there must be a reason for that. which suggests to me, female and male qualities have there own advantages depending on a situation of any sort. and that a male or female may be better suited than the other for any particular task. |
Edward
Member
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 09:22 pm: |
|
Hi Sting and Eric.....
You both have the correct idea of the concept.
Billy did mention in an interview I once read, that the way Man is manifesting
in his relationship - male/female - is Effecting the animal world. In this
case, he mentioned certain bird life, which are 'copying' us humans; where the
male bird is not anymore retaining his - Man Of The House -...role, but is
being dominated by the female; which will than...have negative effect on their
relationship and confuse them even more, and for their further existence.
So, their Natural existence within the framework and regulation by/of (The) Creation, is disrupted. And eventually, they will clash...which will lead
to their extinction. And this will just have a Chain Effect!
The above we should take heed too! That is WHY WE should manifest ourselves
within the framework (Laws/Directives) of The Creation. If not: the above should
give us some idea, of the out-come.
So, the way we humans live and manifest....will have Consequences with our
dearly animal kingdom; as with all aspects...etc.
I mentioned the above some years back.
Edward. |
Borthwey
Member
Post Number: 46
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2008 - 06:59 am: |
|
Hi all.
I will quote parts of the last posts by members Adysor, Peter and Edward and give my comments.
“If you take away the father, the child won't have much confidence, if you take the mother, he/she will be too stuborn and colder(as in feelings)”
A child can have a father and lack confidence, and have a mother and lack feelings. And while parental figures are needed, if they are older, more experienced and wiser persons that may be beneficial to the child. I believe that the educational role doesn’t necessarily have to be fulfilled by the direct progenitors...
“to state that pregnancy is a burden is something i cant agree with”
Well one has to carry around extra weight, right? And eat more, and have some other concerns. I didn’t mean that it is necessarily an unpleasant thing, though I know that the word “burden” can be used to express that.
“a male or female may be better suited than the other for any particular task”
I don’t disagree with that, in principle. However, different people express their male and female qualities differently. The fact that one belongs to a certain sex doesn’t make one automatically qualified for certain tasks either.
“Billy did mention in an interview I once read, that the way Man is manifesting in his relationship - male/female - is Effecting the animal world. In this case, he mentioned certain bird life, which are 'copying' us humans”
This is quite intriguing. Is that interview online?
“Man Of The House”
This seems to me like the expression of a sexist view anchored in cultural patterns, not as a law of nature.
In nature, one can see that:
The male is not always “the provider”.
The male is not always the bigger and/or more aggressive one.
The female is not always the one who takes care of the offspring.
Etc.
The only more or less prevalent feature is that the males tend to be more visually appealing because (since a male can impregnate several females, but not the other way around) there are more available males, and the female has to choose.
David |
|
