1999 - WEEK 21 Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4592 From: J J Dewey Subject: Finding the Blind Spot There's nothing like a good visual demonstration to get your attention. Apparently several of you couldn't see the blind spot. If it still hasn't worked for you, you might want to go to the second website I mentioned and print out the dot and cross (or just draw them on a sheet of paper yourself) and do the experiment with the hard copy. http://biology.wsc.mass.edu/biology/courses/hoag/humbio/99winter/blindspot.htm Rest assured all people do have a physical blind spot, however, if any person would be the exception it would be Rick. I'm glad you enjoyed Samu's excellent presentation on this subject. Let me quote him: "Usually the existence of this spot is difficult to notice, because the eye is normally constantly moving and absorbing light from different objects around us, thus the area that is unseen because of the blind spot changes all the time, and the brain is able to create the illusion of a full picture." Notice that Samu states that we have the illusion that there is no blind spot, but that we are seeing the whole picture because " the eye is normally constantly moving and absorbing light." As above so below applies here. Just as we have a physical blind spot even so do we have blind spots on several higher levels. Samu and others gave some great comments, but I'll try and give some additional insights here. First: Where are the additional blind spots located on the higher levels? The next level up is the astral which governs our lower emotional feelings which is 99% of the emotions felt by the average person. You have heard that "love is blind." Higher spiritual love is not blind, but regular emotional love creates some very hard to see blind spots. We have all seen a friend who is newly "in love" with someone we see is obviously a creep. Why, we wonder can this person not see what he or she is getting into? The answer is simple. By focusing on the one object (lover boy) she becomes blind to other faults circulating around the guy. Some of have even seen an abused spouse who gets the hell beat out of her again and again. Nevertheless, she keeps her eyes focused on the love that was and refuses to believe she is in danger and stays with the guy on her own free will. The next level up is that of the mind. You may have heard the ancient statement that "the mind is the slayer of the real." Why would this be so? Isn't what the mind reveals a true reality? Basically it is true that the mind is a reliable guide except for one thing. The mind has a blind spot and within this blind spot the mind has no perception. Because of this no vision spot the conclusions the mind puts together are not whole (or holy). We have all met the intellectual who just about drives us crazy with his big words and encyclopedic recitations, yet he seems to never make much sense. He sounds intelligent, but he never turns on that light of truth within our spirits. Often his conclusions just doesn't ring true to us even though he seems very positive about them within his own little world. A person may be very educated and logical, but if he has a flaw (blind spot) in his foundational belief system then many of his conclusions will be wrong. Example: Using the mind alone an intellectual cannot prove there is a God, higher beings or life after death. If he thus concludes that life began at birth and ends at death, he will be blinded to over 90% of the truths available to mortal man. On a personality level as a whole most of us have blind spots. Let me tell you one that I discovered in myself. When I was a teenager I loved the early sixties music. I used to memorize many of the songs (Del Shannon was my favorite) and sing them around the house. At the time I thought I had a great voice. When I listened to myself it sounded pretty good to me. In fact I thought I could sing the songs about as good as the original artists. What amazed me is that my Mom, Dad and Sister constantly complained about my singing. I could not understand this complaining and wrote it off as a lack of appreciation for modern music. I ignored them and kept on singing thinking that eventually they would learn to like the songs as I had. Then my Dad reached a point where he had enough and borrowed a tape recorder from and friend and brought it home. In those days it was a novelty to have a tape recorder and up to that point I had never heard my singing voice played back to me. He approached me with a mike and said: "Now sing that favorite song of yours." I was eager to hear my "beautiful" voice so I sang my favorite song "Runaway" for the family. It demanded a falsetto so I thought I would really sound impressive. After I finished the song my Dad played it back to me with a knowing grin on his face. I couldn't believe my ears. I thought I was in the Twilight Zone. Surely the person on the tape couldn't be me. This voice on the tape sounded terrible and when I hit the falsetto the whole family justifiably laughed at my strange attempt. After the tape was played and the "blind spot" about my voice was revealed no one had to yell at me to shut up again. My ego was taken down several notches and I realized that my singing voice had much to be desired. I still loved popular songs and continued to sing them when no one was around. Then I eventually got my own tape recorder and practiced singing into it. Hearing my true self on tape allowed me to truly work on improving my voice. Later I took some singing lessons. My teacher told me that I was her greatest challenge. During this time I probably tripled the quality of my singing voice. It went from terrible to about average, but I was grateful for the improvement. The interesting thing about this experience is that through the use of outside viewpoints and an external player I was able to neutralize the handicap of my blind spot. Then through the use of a teacher with greater knowledge and ability than I had, I was able to make considerable improvement. I realized that there were no limits to the amount that I could improve in this area, but my interests started going in other directions so I am stuck with an average voice - and grateful for it. This story should help us discover our blind spots on the various levels. When I heard family and friends complaining over and over about my voice, that should have told me something. When the person in love hears from all family and friends over and over, "that guy is a creep and is no good for you," maybe they are seeing something you are not. When the dreamer comes up with ideas that sound great to him, but make no sense to anyone else, maybe there's a reason they make no sense. When Romeo thinks he's a lady killer, but all the ladies go out of their way to avoid him, maybe there's a reason for it. We all know people with obvious blind spots to the extent that it seems to be a great mystery as to why they cannot see the fault in themselves. Many New Agers tell us that everything is "within," but concentrating on going within will not eliminate the blind spot. It can only be discovered by going without. We must listen and consider comment and evidence from without (the tape recorder) and play it back and see how that which was without compares to that which seems to be within. As in the case of my voice there may be a stark difference. If there is we must be open to the possibility that we have a blind spot that needs to be revealed. Only when we become completely open to this possibility can we discover the real truth and begin to make some improvement. For many, achieving the average is nothing to be excited about, but because of my struggle with my voice I was more satisfied to have an average voice in the real world than I was when I had a superstar voice in my imaginary world. There is just something about a real achievement in the real world that is much more satisfying that quantum leaps in an illusionary one. The within part of ourselves is never going to come forth and broadcast the blind spot to us. We must listen to the complaining and contrasting voices without and where there is consistency and repetition there may be an opportunity of self discovery. This is what we must do. Not see an insult, but opportunity. We must also remember that there are extremes in all things and on the other end of the spectrum there is the danger that one or two inconsistent voices can convince us that there is a blind spot that does not exist. Becoming convinced of a phantom blind spot can become as big of a handicap as ignoring the blind spot. For instance, BJ, the other day expressed concern about my ego and motive. This did little, however, to make me believe that a blind spot was being revealed. Why is this? Because after thousands of postings this was the first one to express concern about my ego. A second reason that I did not take it seriously is that there were no specifics mentioned as what I have dome that is egotistic. Now, if a number of list members who have grown to know me started telling me with repetition that they are concerned about my ego and are able to give reasons why, then I should at that point consider that I have a blind spot in that area. If I were to be suspicious with myself I should ask my wife and friends what they think about my ego. If I get a few responses that harmonize with the group then I need to take it seriously. The alcoholic is a great example of one who has a big blind spot. Many of them who are in big trouble will just not admit they have a problem. Often times the only way they become convinced is when all their family and friends gang up on him and all relate, one by one, the same observation, that the guy indeed has an alcohol problem and it is ruining all his relationships. Even this does not always work, but it does at times. When successful, the alcoholic faces the fact that so many voices saying the same thing cannot be entirely wrong. Like the alcoholic we often resist with great effort any outside attempts to reveal our blind spot. Outside of our blind spot we may be geniuses, but within it we may appear to be blathering idiots to those who see truly and take pity on us. Question: Do you think that we can retain our blind spots and still attain spiritual enlightenment? Do you know of people who believe themselves to be enlightened that have obvious blind spots? Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4593 From: J J Dewey Subject: Web Page Update I have updated the web page and added some great links to free reading materials. You might want to take a look. http://www.freeread.com/Links.htm Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4594 From: xavier Subject: Re : Blind Spot Test J J Dewey writes: "Rick and others. If that first test did not work for the blind spot try this one. http://biology.wsc.mass.edu/biology/courses/hoag/humbio/99winter/blindspot.htm" It may not work because you don't look at it from near enough. Try 25 centimeters. Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4595 From: xavier Subject: Re : Re: Blind Spot Test Diane Linen writes: "Help! How far away is 50 cm's in inches?" 1 inch (you english mud!) =3D 2.54 cm 50cm =3D a bit more than 20 inches more precisely 19,68 20cm =3D (for the first url of test) 7,87 inches (don't let it be 7,88 it won't work LOL) Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4596 From: xavier Subject: Re : Re: Kevin Shannon writes: "derearak1@hotmail.com writes: "EARTH PHASE" "I have received four of this same message and wonder why. This message = does not resonate with me. Marylin" "My response was delete, delete, delete, delete! Kevin" I see we are many to agree on this. Kick, ban! Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4597 From: xavier Subject: Re : Re: Blind Spot Test No, one inch equal 2,54 cm So 50 cm equal a bit less than 20 inches Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4598 From: xavier Subject: Re : Blind Spot Test "Christopher Wynter" writes: "in my school days, there were 2.54 cm in 1 inch ie 50/2.54 =3D 19.68 inches" Now I should have read ahead:-) LOL Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4599 From: Marylin Subject: Re: Blind Spot Test Kevin writes: "It should be 196.85 inches." That equals 16 feet 4 inches. Marylin Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4600 From: Marylin Subject: Re: The Guiding Principle JJ writes: "Can you name some freedoms on both sides of the pendulum that those in illusion wish to restrict?" In my experience one of the freedoms that I cherish is the freedom to study, learn and experience God/Creator/The One Thought in the way that I choose to do so. Too many seem to think that this is occult without understanding that the word occult simply means hidden. This seems to be on both sides of the pendulum, one being the dogmatic churches and the other being those who just don't want to hear. "What is the only reason that freedom should ever be restricted?" I have learned through some hard experience that to infringe on another's free will only causes unpleasant karma. Hence we are responsible for restricting our own freedom in that area. Marylin Post No. keys-l: /199905-23/4601 From: John Kosior Subject: Re: The Guiding Principle Marylin wrote: "I have learned through some hard experience that to infringe on another's free will only causes unpleasant karma. Hence we are responsible for restricting our own freedom in that area." Hi Marylin and All, I enjoyed your comments. This one above also seems to work well in reverse. Looking at the areas in our lives where we have restricted freedoms would most likely reveal to us the areas where we infringe (or impinge:) on the free will of others. This may well be helpful in revealing our "blind spots", as we would probably not knowingly restrict our own prized freedoms. We may however "blindly" restrict the freedoms of another and thus cause a corresponding restriction in our own world. Time for more coffee. Good Day All, John Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4602 From: John Kosior Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot J J Dewey wrote: "Question: Do you think that we can retain our blind spots and still attain spiritual enlightenment?" Hi Again All, I think that we have little choice but to attain our enlightenment while in possession of our blind spot. It only stands to reason that if we had no blind spot, we'd already BE enlightened (full knowledge). And if we had already attained enlightenment, let's say on the earth plane, then on the earth plane there would be no blind spot. But I'm willing to venture that before long we would be introduced to our new blind spot in the plane we find ourselves in. Perhaps beginning the cycle again. Maybe this is the blessing of the blind spot. It may be the element which keeps the all of creation in motion. Imagine every entity, from master to slug. All eager in some way to fill in there respective blind spot. This in itself may be enough to preclude that the creation will not stagnate, but continue to search for the "missing element" and thus the engine of creation runs forever. "Do you know of people who believe themselves to be enlightened that have obvious blind spots?" If you asked this angel standing behind me he'd look right at me. I've worked through many blind spots in my life, but when viewed by one with higher wisdom, even my most subtle blind spots are seen as obvious. In this regard, and in the interest of humility, I know that I can easily fit this billing. Have A Great Day Folks, John Post No. keys-l: /199905-23/4603 From: Paul Yu Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot Hi everyone, The blind spot of the personality is found where fear-hate and pride lie. These are caused by the fact that the energies of the personality are concentrated on the fulfillment of their needs and wants. The personality has desire, which is both material and spiritual, manifested in terms of needs and wants. The way the personality perceives oneself is such that they in order to fulfill their fundamental desire of identifying themself as an infinite being inflate their self out of proportion without being aware of it. This is the origin of pride. At the same time the personality focuses their energies on fulfilling all their needs and wants on the emotional level to which are attached the physical needs and appetites. Being limited in their functioning the personality develops a most fundamental reaction to what they conceive as the unconquerable opposition. This reaction is the complex of fear-hate, the twofold emotional reaction underlying all other emotional reactions. The untruth of pride together with the frightful nature of fear-hate would never want to see the light of truth and the warmth of love. They work most powerfully and effectively behind the scenes. They are the personal blind spot par excellence. All those whose personalities have not been fully blended and fused with the soul do have this blind spot very much alive. The progress of especially advanced personalities precisely consists in becoming aware of these well-guarded blind spot. Paul Yu SpiritualityABC SpiritualityESOTERIC http://onelist.com Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4604 From: (Richard/ Sharon) Subject: Links Thank you JJ, you have just given me, at least, 120 more years of life, I figure it may take me that long to go through all those sites and I plan to, so obviously I can't cross for quite some time. love and light, sharon Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4605 From: "Zia" Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot Greetings to all, and particularly to you Paul Yu. I found great wisdom in your simple words here today, for yesterday before the posts on the blind spot (or I ever looked into the list) I found the blind spot you spoke about. Since I had not read your post and perhaps it was not out, I described what I found as the desire for vengeance/revenge. I saw my unconscious very caught up in the desire for this action, and I saw all the points that I would call doorways that linked my mind into that desire, such as the need to be right, the need to be the authority, all your aspects of pride. I also saw that it linked me to specific people lifetime after lifetime, in the desire to carry out this vengeance/revenge. And sadly I saw my desire to even choose death to place blame, guilt, vengeance and the ultimate revenge as a punishment onto that person. I had just sung the song, slowly because my head was not clear oddly enough, and when I got to the part of 'that within this light is complete protection from all destructive forces' there was a profound knowing in me that this was absolutely true. Then a window opened and I saw my desire for vengeance/revenge. Because I was held in the knowingness that nothing could harm me, I could look it squarely in the face. I was saddened at how unloving I seemed to really feel towards this person. I saw the lifetimes of what seemed like justification for my feelings. The repetition of not being heard, and it costing either his life or mine, over and over, and when he had the chance to save my life, he did not. The desire for justice is powerful. I had a bath and the tears came as I realized I was not such 'an enlightened one' after all, and yet I knew that it was because I was enlightened I could look on this fearlessly and find its truth and go beyond its limitations. Still the deep sadness took all my years of training to apply what I know to be true, and not be caught in self pity etc. I came online much later, and the first post, which I did not notice who wrote, was 'when we look at our weakness, it becomes out strength' and whoever wrote that, thank you...I understood. Yes JJ I found 'a' blind spot, the one Paul Yu speaks of here, and this young man has fought me all his life, and I asked him this morning to say 'I love you' three times and mean it (after forgiveness in focus etc.) oddly enough he did, and then kissed me and hugged me, not something a teenager willingly does at all. He has a friend staying and we all had a water fight on this glorious summer day, and this boy so wanted to get me, and he did, and we laughed as I got him equally too and I can only hope in the laughter that the past is finally healed, and the long, long desire for revenge is dead and gone forever. I can see that we do not find love here easily because we did not come for love, we came for punishment, revenge or some form of vengeance, whether towards God, others or ourselves. "The blind spot of the personality is found where fear-hate and pride lie. These are caused by the fact that the energies of the personality are concentrated on the fulfillment of their needs and wants." "The personality has desire, which is both material and spiritual, manifested in terms of needs and wants. The way the personality perceives oneself is such that they in order to fulfill their fundamental desire of identifying themself as an infinite being inflate their self out of proportion without being aware of it. This is the origin of pride. At the same time the personality focuses their energies on fulfilling all their needs and wants on the emotional level to which are attached the physical needs and appetites. Being limited in their functioning the personality develops a most fundamental reaction to what they conceive as the unconquerable opposition. This reaction is the complex of fear-hate, the twofold emotional reaction underlying all other emotional reactions." "The untruth of pride together with the frightful nature of fear-hate would never want to see the light of truth and the warmth of love. They work most powerfully and effectively behind the scenes. They are the personal blind spot par excellence." "All those whose personalities have not been fully blended and fused with the soul do have this blind spot very much alive. The progress of especially advanced personalities precisely consists in becoming aware of these well guarded blind spot." I thought I was so loving, always choosing love, and then to see the program from the past still running. Thank God for all my teachers in all of my life, and to you JJ and all of you on the list, thank you for being here at this time. I will share later with my son, the insights of this 'blind spot' so he will have a choice to understand and forgive as well. I believe JJ we need to be well 'enlightened' meaning filled with considerable knowledge before this is brought out into the light, for the personality is fragile, and vulnerable and easily caught and destroyed by the 'beast' because these doorways always opened to the 'beast'. Seeing and knowing them, means I am no longer vulnerable, I know the truth, and now I have a choice. Your words were a timely confirmation to what I saw over the last 24 hours. We may not 'want' to see our blind spot, but we cannot progress without seeing it, as we in our powerful state become a dark brother, not a white brother if this is not seen. The choice is made a in a moment, often unconsciously. Perhaps all of our blind spots on different levels brought us to this one, where we could finally see them, in matter right in front of us!! Love to you all, ZIA Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4606 From: (Richard/ Sharon) Subject: Blind spot Zia, thank you for sharing such a beautiful and personal story, you touched me very deeply. warm love and bright light, sharon Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4607 From: Paul Yu Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot Thank yourself, Zia, for allowing you to see your blind spot. How wonderful! I am grateful for you. Hope all of us each find our own the way you did. Paul Yu SpiritualityABC SpiritualityESOTERIC http://onelist.com Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4608 From: Paul Yu Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot Editor's note: Duplicate post of No. 4607 Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4609 From: Samu Karlsson Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot John writes: "Maybe this is the blessing of the blind spot. It may be the element which keeps the all of creation in motion. Imagine every entity, from master to slug. All eager in some way to fill in there respective blind spot. This in itself may be enough to preclude that the creation will not stagnate, but continue to search for the "missing element" and thus the engine of creation runs forever." Hi John and all, Loved your words of thinking up there John :) I agree, I too think that there always have to be something 'missing' in the sense that there always is more to stretch, further to go, new things to become. Indeed, if everything could be seen at once, I would already perceive all of my choices before I had made them. This reminds me of what we discussed some weeks ago, the time between the real now and what we perceive. Without these 'perfect imperfections', everything would stop and just eternally be without change or motion, pretty much the same way I believe everything/nothing was before it became what it is becoming now :) It also reminds me of what Zia wrote in her recent letter: "Funnily enough I felt this 'blind spot' physically was the point of the third eye in a sense, so that spiritual sight could come in at that point, allowing me to 'see' on different levels while using my physical eyes at the same time. "I also then thought that there would be a spiritual blind spot, able to see into the physical. Just a thought. As I read this I see the symbol of yin and yang, where you have 2 opposing parts creating a whole, plus there is a drop of yin in yang and the other way around. There always seems to be something in the other having a drop of other's quality, and this makes the wheel of the whole process spin eternally. Curiosity might have killed the cat, but it also brings everything alive, as we have the inner fire to always learn more about the unknown which we don't directly see, take a peek on the other side and learn more fully where we really are in the process, thru seeing what we might not even know to exist until we test our ability to perceive. Sometimes we learn that something exists because it makes something else disappear. Sometimes we see the truth about what we see because we learn that we don't really see the truth of the whole. Sometimes a man is so tired at 1am that he really needs to get some sleep :) Wishing you all a great week! Samu :) Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4610 From: "Christopher Wynter" Subject: The Blind Spot ... a one eyed view ... We have two eyes In each, there is a blind spot ... most agree on that ... It is only when one eye is covered that the 'blind spot' becomes apparent.. May I suggest that what JJ is looking for ( the metaphor ) is ... when we look through one eye, in any one eyed perception, there is a blind spot in that perception ... when we see spirituality through one eye, there is a blind spot ... to other ... which is continually moving ... the singular, individual eye is the ego ... complete with blind spot .... Christopher Wynter Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-23/4611 From: (Linda M. Roxbury) Subject: Re: Digest No. 1999-05-23 of The Keys of Knowledge List "Ok, I tried this one and could only find a blind spot in my left eye. With my right eye open I couldn't get the other symbol to disappear at any distance. Can't wait to hear how this corresponds to a spiritual blind spot." "Hope that's soon. My little brain is really tied up in a knot. John" Diane Linen wrote: "Help! How far away is 50 cm's in inches? I have no idea. I just put my nose to the screen and walked backward till I hit the other wall. I figured I had to hit 50 cm's somewhere in there. :)" John "It should be 196.85 inches. Kevin "I misplaced the decimal point. It is 19.685 inches. Kevin" Hi All -- New on the list. Been lurking for about a week now. As to the blindspot test .... I'm with John. Only found the blindspot to be in my left eye. Course that was after I fell over the chair whilst backing up from the screen searching for the 50cm point. LOL! John -- gotta tell ya .... love the humor you bring to these posts! To All -- Peace be your Journey always, and all ways! LINDA How little do they see what is, who frame their judgments upon that which seems. -Robert Southey Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4612 From: "xavier" Subject: Re : Finding the Blind Spot J J Dewey writes: "Question: Do you think that we can retain our blind spots and still attain spiritual enlightenment?" I think no. I think we must know ourselves pretty well, put everything in the light. Then we can improve ourselves in the areas that need training. "Do you know of people who believe themselves to be enlightened that have obvious blind spots?" Yes, me! :-) I am my first choice on this:-) Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4613 From: Marylin Subject: Re: The Guiding Principle John Kosior writes: "We may however "blindly" restrict the freedoms of another and thus cause a corresponding restriction in our own world. Time for more coffee. Good Day All, John" Hi John This is one that I didn't think of. Now I have to go back and rehash everything to see where my blind spot is. I think my brain has gone on vacation. Marylin Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4614 From: Marylin Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot JJ Dewey writes: "Question: Do you think that we can retain our blind spots and still attain spiritual enlightenment?" I think we can. If what is being revealed here is true, then there must be a problem with blind spots on lots of levels. "Do you know of people who believe themselves to be enlightened that have obvious blind spots?" I haven't really thought of myself as "enlightened" but I am certainly guilty of having blind spots. Marylin Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4615 From: Rick Audette Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot "Rest assured all people do have a physical blind spot, however, if any person would be the exception it would be Rick." It's not that I don't have one, my brother says I can't see the broad side of a barn. Thing is, my vehicle, like my desk, is full of fine vision and measurement tools (*), that help me get a good look at what I need to see and know about. I have certainly been blind, in love, more than once. Thing is, when any of us comes into this world we choose to become blind (no exceptions). Then, after stumbling around in the dark and crashing into things, we either find the light switch, grope about with a long white cane or find other ways of getting about. It comes with the territory as a built-in way to make us seek light. Of course, there are always those that would choose to curse the darkness, but I would rather light just one little candle. (*) tools I keep handy at my desk at home and the office include; flashlight, laser pointer, magnifying glass, tweezers, magnifying mirror, screwdrivers (for looking inside of things), calipers, measuring tape, dictionary (for looking inside words) and bible. If a sculptor tells me it was hand carved, I ask him if he carved it with his finger nails :). There is none so unblind as he that has the tools to see. Rick -- And what a thing a child can be, The chord that bonds them all If it is one with both of us, Then we are one with all Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4616 From: John Kosior Subject: Re: Digest No. 1999-05-23 of The Keys of Knowledge List "Linda M. Roxbury" wrote: "Hi All -- New on the list. Been lurking for about a week now. As to the blindspot test .... I'm with John. Only found the blindspot to be in my left eye. Course that was after I fell over the chair whilst backing up from the screen searching for the 50cm point. LOL!" Hi Linda, Grandest welcome to you. I'm so happy you've decided to throw your hat in with us. And I'm also glad you appreciate a little humor with your spiritual dining experience. :) The Times can be so troubling. So confusing and hard to read and understand. Especially when you get to the crossword puzzle. :) But that's beside the point. All I wanted to say is we are all glad you're here. And I look forward to gleaning from what you have to offer. Have A Kewl Day, John Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4617 From: Travis Tabbal Subject: Re: The Guiding Principle On 22 May 1999, J J Dewey wrote: "Both the conservatives and liberals, old age and new age religions have their pet freedoms that they wish to restrict." "Can you name some freedoms on both sides of the pendulum that those in illusion wish to restrict? What is the only reason that freedom should ever be restricted?" I'll un-lurk temporarily for this one... I'll work from the current definition of Conservative and Liberal. Conservatives want to allow economic freedom, but restrict moral freedoms. So business should be left alone, but (to use a recent extreme example in the south) you can't buy a vibrator. Liberals are opposite. They want to restrict economic freedoms and allow all moral freedoms to go unchecked. So they would stand for gay rights, oppose the above mentioned vibrator law, and tell companies what they can and can't do. This is, of course, a bit simplistic. There is much more to it, but for a basic definition that works well. It should also be noted that in the beginning the liberals stood for Liberty (thus the name) and were then what the Libertarians are now. IIRC the conservatives were always like that. Of course, in the present day it's hard to tell the difference sometimes. When should freedom be restricted? Only if in using the freedom in question you cause harm to or remove freedom from another person. So while you are free to drink, you are not free to then drive your car into someone. While you are free to own a gun (for now, if the government gets their way) you are not allowed to shoot someone with it because they pissed you off. While you are free to say anything you like, saying false things about someone can damage their reputation and prevent them from doing business, thus we have libel and slander laws. It should all come down to one simple question: Did the action in question cause measurable damage to the victim? It should be noted that if you want to hurt yourself, that's your right. This would include "victimless crimes" like drug use. In that case you hurt yourself, you aren't forcing someone else to do anything, and you aren't hurting anyone else. Why then are pot smokers getting longer prison terms then murderers? As an aside, I don't use any illegal drugs, nor would I if they were legal. It just bothers me that we have murderers and rapists running free while the cops are busting someone for smoking a joint, or in some states, selling a vibrator. Travis Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4618 From: Travis Tabbal Subject: Re: Blind Spot Test On 22 May 1999, Diane Linen wrote: "Help! How far away is 50 cm's in inches?" Sheesh... http://www.waterw.com/~science/Conversion.html That should help. To answer the question at hand, it's 19.685". The content above is for the Metric impaired. I really wish everyone would switch to the Metric system... Oh, wait, everyone except the US has. grrrrrrrrrrrr Travis Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4619 From: Travis Tabbal Subject: Re: Blind Spot Test Kevin Shannon wrote: "It should be 196.85 inches." !?!?!?!?!! Watch those decimal points! :) Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4620 From: "David Curtis" Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot J J Dewey writes: "Question: Do you think that we can retain our blind spots and still attain spiritual enlightenment?" We can't retain our blind spots and attain spiritual enlightenment. A big part of being spiritually enlightened, is the ability to see the truth as it is, and accept that truth, whether or not you like it. If you have 'blind spots', you are still seeing with a certain amount of illusion. How can truth be known, if you cannot see past the illusion? "Do you know of people who believe themselves to be enlightened that have obvious blind spots?" Many people (like my in-laws) have blind spots, merely because they accept what their religion says as absolute truth, without question. It is true that they have a great deal of knowledge about the beliefs of their own religion, but that does not mean they are spiritually enlightened, although they believe they are. I have several examples, but most of them are centered around people who put their religions above God him/herself. So I will leave it at that. - Dave Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4621 From: J J Dewey Subject: Liberal and Conservative Restrictions Question: Can you name some freedoms on both sides of the pendulum that those in illusion wish to restrict? What is the only reason that freedom should ever be restricted? I thought Glenys gave a good answer to this. Let me quote: "Both conservative and liberals deny freedom of choice in one way or another eg the conservative's commitment to tradition and the liberal's commitment to the power of the state (depending on which branch of 'liberalism' is practiced). Throughout history, freedom of religion and self-determination have been sacrificed by people who describe themselves as being one or the other. Both look to eternal sources for answers to life and purport to know what's best for the individual, going so far as to devise severe penalties for those who choose to control their own lives and destinies." Christopher's comment on the blind spot fits in with our comment here. He mentioned that we only seem to have a blind spot when one eye is shut and that it seems to go away when both eyes are open. It is an interesting correspondence that the left eye is male-conservative-logical and the right eye is female-liberal-emotional. In other words, we can greatly eliminate the effects of the blind spot by balancing the male-conservative-logical and female-liberal-emotional energies within us. Those who have a mindset on either the conservative or liberal side will have a blind spot and be out of balance in their total vision. Hence they will feel justified in restricting the freedoms of those on the other side of the pendulum. Let us bring this home with specific examples. (1) Abortion is a great example. Liberals claim conservatives are seeking to restrict their freedom over their own bodies. On the other hand, conservatives claim liberals are seeking to totally eliminate the freedom of the unborn child. Who is really seeking to take away freedom, or are they both in the wrong? (2) Liberals claim that freedom is increased through expensive social programs. Those who receive the money have more freedom to spend money. Conservatives claim that freedom is decreased because the State takes by force from some and gives it to others. Those who have money taken from them lose freedom. Who is correct, or are they both wrong? (3) Liberals support free speech in most creative endeavors even if it distorts and makes fun of God and Jesus, has lots of curse words, has kids in trench coats blowing people away and open pornography. In this area conservatives take a stand and say we should restrict some freedom of speech in these areas. On the other hand, conservatives support free speech in areas considered politically incorrect by the liberals. They think it is ridiculous that anyone should be offended by a name like "Washington Redskins." They do not like being restricted to the word "person" instead of "him" or "he" and want the freedom to continue to use the word MANkind as a designating word for the race. They want the freedom tell jokes about Italians or Mexicans if they want. In these politically correct areas many liberals want to make it a law that takes away freedom to use politically incorrect words and phrases. Even now in most government jobs you can be fired for being politically incorrect. Again, who has the right idea in the restriction of freedom? (4) The liberal thinks we should correct our children with kindness on the physical level - that kids should have freedom from fear of spanking. Again, good and decent people have differing views of freedom here. Conservatives believe they should have the freedom to spank their kids when necessary. (5) Conservatives generally want to restrict freedom to smoke pot and liberals generally want to restrict the freedom to smoke cigarettes. Now earlier someone mentioned that they thought that most of the people on the list have chosen the path of light, but before the final choice can be made the principle of freedom must be correctly understood. My guess would be that in these three areas that part of the list would identify with the conservative idea of restricting freedom and part with the liberal side. Hopefully we have illustrated here that the choice between light and dark is not that simple. If we make a wrong choice for the restriction of freedom now it will be very difficult to change directions in the future. The dark side is not entered in one giant step or decision, but is preceded my hundreds of small wrong illusionary decisions that later have to be undone with steps retraced if we are to make the correct choice in the end. When we do make a wrong decision concerning freedom what do you suppose our soul does for us later in life (or a future one) to help us back on the path? Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4622 From: "Zia" Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot Greetings to All, And to you Dave, J J Dewey writes: "Question: Do you think that we can retain our blind spots and still attain spiritual enlightenment?" "We can't retain our blind spots and attain spiritual enlightenment. A big part of being spiritually enlightened, is the ability to see the truth as it is, and accept that truth, whether or not you like it. If you have 'blind spots', you are still seeing with a certain amount of illusion. How can truth be known, if you cannot see past the illusion?" For me I understand the word enlightenment as 'to be in knowledge of' and so for me it is that I gain knowledge, but the application is another thing. We need the knowledge to be able to apply to our blind spots. Otherwise, how would we know we have blind spots and be able to do something about it? So enlightenment is only the first step, application of that knowledge seems to be the second, and it appears to me to be an ongoing process all the way home. "Do you know of people who believe themselves to be enlightened that have obvious blind spots?" "Many people (like my in-laws) have blind spots, merely because they accept what their religion says as absolute truth, without question. It is true that they have a great deal of knowledge about the beliefs of their own religion, but that does not mean they are spiritually enlightened, although they believe they are. I have several examples, but most of them are centered around people who put their religions above God him/herself. So I will leave it at that. - Dave" Again for me we all have some knowledge, some enlightenment, some light, and the goal to me is to become the light fully, no blind spots, no dark spots, nothing unknown about myself, and that is wholeness to me. Kindest regards, ZIA Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4623 From: J J Dewey Subject: The Reason to Restrict Freedoms Travis gave a good answer on this: "Only if in using the freedom in question you cause harm to or remove freedom from another person. So while you are free to drink, you are not free to then drive your car into someone. While you are free to own a gun (for now, if the government gets their way) you are not allowed to shoot someone with it because they pissed you off. While you are free to say anything you like, saying false things about someone can damage their reputation and prevent them from doing business, thus we have libel and slander laws. "It should all come down to one simple question: Did the action in question cause measurable damage to the victim?" Welcome Travis. We hope you come out of lurking more often. You seem to be headed in the right direction with your answer. The trouble is that even if you or I were king of the world and had a responsibility to write the criteria for the restriction of freedom it still would be misinterpreted by future generations no matter how clear and accurate the presentation was. The reason is that it takes a certain degree of soul contact to obtain a sense of the true principle of freedom. Therefore the best we can do as teachers is to present the principle as clear as word can be and attempt to inspire others to throw the principle of freedom across the soul so the desire for maximum freedom of spirit will burn in the hearts of the sons and daughters of this little planet. The greatest temptation placed before us humans to assist the Dark Brothers is to get caught in the illusion that "to accomplish good, we must participate in an evil to remove freedom, for the trade off seems good." This was what happened with communism. They had a great goal - equality and abundance for all, but they made the mistake of seeking this goal by forcibly removing the freedoms of the people. As a result in the end (in the USSR for example) they had neither equality or abundance. Remember our discussions about the Beast in the beginning of our list? Some wondered why we spent so much time on that subject, but it is extremely important to understand that the Beast represents a strong authority figure that we either give our freedoms to or takes them from us "for our own good." The only freedom that should be restricted are actions that take away more freedom or rights of the group or individuals than is added. We restrict the freedom of the thief to rob others because this action takes away more freedom than it adds. Overall we may define the principle of freedom as follows: "Those actions and laws lie within the principle of Freedom that bring greater freedom for and amplify the power of DECISION making for the group and individual. "The actions and laws that lie outside the Principle of Freedom are those that bring less freedom for and diminish the power of DECISION making for the group and individual. "To take away freedom so that good may come is illusion and the foundation of great evil. "To allow freedom so that evil and harm is possible is the path of light for in the end the illusion of evil is dispelled and the power to BECOME is amplified." The decision between the two paths is not a decision between blissful love and demonic madness. If that were all it is then all would choose the path of light. Instead many are deceived into a dangerous heading toward the dark path because they believe they are choosing love. It is a great temptation for seemingly loving people to support the taking away of freedom so that good may come. Such decisions lessen the power of decision and as the power of decision is diminished the illusion is amplified. As the illusion is amplified the possibility of choosing the unthinkable becomes real. In our last post we gave five examples of possible distortions of freedom. Try and apply the principle of freedom to discover the true course to take to solve these problems. JJ Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4624 From: "David Curtis" Subject: Re: Liberal and Conservative Restrictions Most of these are simple decisions if you are striving to do the highest good possible. For example, in this following statement... JJ Dewey: "(1) Abortion is a great example. Liberals claim conservatives are seeking to restrict their freedom over their own bodies." "On the other hand, conservatives claim liberals are seeking to totally eliminate the freedom of the unborn child." "Who is really seeking to take away freedom, or are they both in the wrong?" Dave: We're all human, and sometimes we make mistakes. It seems the highest good in this instance, would be to accept the responsibility of that mistake, and carry the child to term. If you choose to have the abortion, you choose not to accept that responsibility, and you will pay for that mistake some other way. However, it is not the place of the government to take away our right to make that decision. I stand by my decision that in most of these cases, the government has no place. It is up to the eye of the beholder to make the decision with the best of their ability. The only example given that MIGHT be an exception to this rule is the following statement. JJ Dewey: "(4) The liberal thinks we should correct our children with kindness on the physical level - that kids should have freedom from fear of spanking." "Again, good and decent people have differing views of freedom here." "Conservatives believe they should have the freedom to spank their kids when necessary." Dave: Spanking your children is one thing. However, it can go too far. Once the spanking escalates into abuse, then someone needs to step in to protect that child from his/her own parents. The parent is obviously no longer interested in allowing their child to make their own decisions, and hell-bent on taking away all of their freedom. In this situation intervention is almost certainly required to protect the child's freedom. JJ Dewey: "When we do make a wrong decision concerning freedom what do you suppose our soul does for us later in life (or a future one) to help us back on the path?" Dave: Karma. What goes around comes around. When we make a wrong decision, we will have to accept responsibility for that decision by either making it right, or facing the Karmic consequences. - Dave Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4625 From: "David Curtis" Subject: Re: Finding the Blind Spot Zia writes: "For me I understand the word enlightenment as 'to be in knowledge of' and so for me it is that I gain knowledge, but the application is another thing. We need the knowledge to be able to apply to our blind spots. Otherwise, how would we know we have blind spots and be able to do something about it? So enlightenment is only the first step, application of that knowledge seems to be the second, and it appears to me to be an ongoing process all the way home." I agree with you completely. In order to remain enlightened or 'in the knowledge of', you must be willing to accept the truth of that knowledge. If you have a 'blind spot' pointed out to you and refuse to accept it, there is no way you can remain spiritually enlightened. (Unless the blind spot is false, of course.) I'm sure I still have a few blind spots. I may also not be as spiritually enlightened as I think I am. I have friends (who shall remain unnamed, but you know who you are.) who are more than happy to point my blind spots out for me. I just have to decide whether or not to be offended, or take a serious look at myself and take steps to correct the problem. - Dave Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4626 From: Susi Subject: Guiding principle/freedom No, I meant 'impinge'. But 'infringe' does just as well if you prefer it :-) Glenys....please help to expand my knowledge and tell me the definition of impinge. I do not have it in my dictionary that I can find. "Now JJ was not causing anyone harm, he was just simply speaking his truth which was contrary to those peoples belief system. These people could have reacted by simply saying my opinion differs and walking away or not responded at all. Instead they chose to defend their particular belief system from this invader (J J ) who did not belong there, deserved to be arrested, was a blasphemer. (not my opinion ;-)) According to the above answer the Born Again Christians in this instance had the right to restrict J J from even being present at their meeting if not fully legal to arrest him for INFRINGING upon their gathering simply because (now check the dictionary reference) J J FRUSTRATED them." "I'm not sure how your argument fits in with my view that freedom should be restricted when it impinges (or infringes) on the rights of others. I wouldn't have put JJ's discussions with the born again Christians in that category and didn't mention them as an example." I used that as an extreme example because my view is that if it is ok to restrict ones freedom then who do we look to as the judge of what is and is not to be restricted. In the more recent posts we are discussing the different opinions of Liberals and Conservatives.......they both seek to restrict different freedoms. I feel it is only Source and our understanding or misunderstanding that guides us in what we each individually think is an ok freedom to restrict. I realize you did not use the above as an example, I was just attempting to express what Marylin said in just a few words so eloquently, "What is the only reason that freedom should ever be restricted? I have learned through some hard experience that to infringe on another's free will only causes unpleasant karma. Hence we are responsible for restricting our own freedom in that area. Marylin" Or maybe it could be do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "Now why this is wrong for ME: No one can FRUSTRATE you with out your consent! No one can DEFEAT you with out your consent. When I ENCROACH upon someone then I am to be restricted. Who is to determine if I am in-fact encroaching or not?" "Can't the government in some countries imprison a person illegally, unjustifiably and without their consent? Isn't this an infringement of their inalienable God-given right to freedom. Certainly, one can control their reactions to a situation and thereby refuse to be 'frustrated' but no one can control the actions of those who have authority over them. I think our disagreement is due to a problem in definition and your assuming I meant to use the word 'infringe'. Who knows :-) Love Glenys" I'm not sure about this? But just because some governments do this it does not make it right. Yes it is an infringement of their God-given right to freedom. I agree with that! True no one can control the actions of those who have authority over them, but I have not willingly given anyone authority over me. This is why I agree so much with the theory that Marylin came up with. I would not willingly or intentionally harm, judge or restrict another's freedom because of the what goes around comes around saying type thing. (Karma, it hurts me to hurt someone else, I would not feel good about myself and this would reflect out ward into everything since everything is connected) Glenys you could be very right about the problem in definition, but again I am at a lose here as my dictionary does not have impinge.....I do hope you will help me out here ;-) Confession: I usually keep silent because of my own insecurities of not being able to express myself in an educated manner and much of what I express is often misinterpreted but I am learning to over come this fear so that my horizons can expand. It is difficult to put feelings into words as often the words do not exist that would accurately portray my true vision. (see I just have trouble with this but I'll keep trying.) No I still did not unsubscribe....I went to and something stopped me and said not yet.....so your all stuck with me for a while longer. Many Blessings;-) Susi Alexander The Healing Hearth "http://www.healinghearth.com" Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4627 From: (Richard/ Sharon) Subject: Hi Suzi, my dictionary (The Little Oxford Dictionary) defines "impinge v.i. make impact (on) encroach upon", thanks for your interesting insights. love & light, sharon Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4628 From: Diane Linen Subject: Re: Blind Spot Test Travis Tabbal wrote: "On 22 May 1999, Diane Linen wrote: "Help! How far away is 50 cm's in inches?" "Sheesh... http://www.waterw.com/~science/Conversion.html" "That should help. To answer the question at hand, it's 19.685". The content above is for the Metric impaired. I really wish everyone would switch to the Metric system... Oh, wait, everyone except the US has. grrrrrrrrrrrr Travis" Many thanks to all who responded so kindly to my plea for help. Us U.S.'ers have so much to learn from the rest of the world who aren't metric impaired. I personally much prefer to buy gasoline by the gallon rather than the liter but that's probably because I get more for my purchase. ;-) Diane Post No. keys-l: /1999--05-24/4629 From: (Richard/ Sharon) Subject: Guiding Principle Susi forgive me for mis-spelling your name, my fingers take on a life of their own sometimes. We had a grand teacher that suggested we look at The Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have others do unto you) closely, he suggested that such a principle could have dire consequences if you were a masochist and his idea of the best was to be abused, we would not want to be done unto like that. That, perhaps we could just follow God's will and not man's desires. This simply seemed a good time for me to share with this wonderful group once again. love & light, sharon Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4630 From: Susi Subject: Re: Guiding Principle Forgiven ;-) Also a very good point regarding the do unto others. I never looked at it that way another blind spot realized. Now that realized.....my oldest son talks from the time he gets up till the time he goes to bed. He likes conversation and is rarely silent. Me, I like silence and listen quite a bit. He always asks why I don't talk more, I always ask why he doesn't listen more. I suppose in my silence and listening I am treating him how I wish to be treated and in his constant chatting he is treating me how he wishes to be treated. I guess now I will look for a common ground between the two of us and compromise my silence a bit for his sake and maybe he will compromise his chatting for mine. (wish me luck on this one........sometimes the simplest of words can trigger such a profound understanding) Thank you Sharon Many Blessings;-) Susi Alexander The Healing Hearth "http://www.healinghearth.com" Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4631 From: "Jill" Subject: Re: Guiding principle/freedom Hello Susi, How are you? I know exactly how you feel with regards to communication getting my point out. I use to hate confrontation and was really afraid, when someone wouldn't agree with me I would just not say anything, would just be silent. People use to say some things that did not feel right for me and I thought that they knew better. How wrong I was. I joined another list and low and behold it didn't matter what I said or wrote they just did not want to accept my writings or me. I suppose I came across like Angela did on this list and it was awful. But I stuck with it like you and I am glad I did. I am no longer afraid to express how I feel or what I know as true, nor do I want to try for another to take on my beliefs because I accept everyone has a right to their own opinion and belief the way God intends for them to be. This has now been broken I no longer P--- people Off :o] As a consequence of sticking with it my communication is beyond what I could imagine, I am accepted, loved and it doesn't matter to me if people don't acknowledge what I write or agree with it because in weeks, months, years to come it is not going to matter diddly squat. What will matter that I spoke with love, positiveness and accepted another not because of Karma but because I generally love all and I feel, see the love in another. I might not touch all but if my words touch another for just a moment and we connect that is what is important. To touch in a positive way or a negative way I suppose that is the question. Karma or Forgiveness? I know which one I choose :o] AS for the meaning of impinge ( found under impiety) it means 1. "to strike or dash, collide" 2. to encroach or infringe 3. to make an impression Sorry to butt in my helper/giver thing came out :o] Sometimes life's lessons are just like games that we don't realise we are playing until we get the big cosmic joke then we can honestly have the best laugh ever. The man who laughs last does not honestly laugh best he/she just takes longer to get the joke :o] love to all, Jill I am becoming all I decide to become - JJ Dewey. The Immortal http://www.freeread.com Life is full of rainbows, Smile and make your own It is all a game and it is how you play that counts Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4632 From: John Kosior Subject: Re: Liberal and Conservative Restrictions J J Dewey wrote: "Now earlier someone mentioned that they thought that most of the people on the list have chosen the path of light, but before the final choice can be made the principle of freedom must be correctly understood." "My guess would be that in these three areas that part of the list would identify with the conservative idea of restricting freedom and part with the liberal side." Strange. I sat and tried to come up with some answer to these liberal/conservative questions. And I couldn't understand why, that although I could have argued for or against either side pretty convincingly, I had absolutely no desire to do so. But I'm fairly convinced this is a good thing. :) Pleasant Thoughts Folks, John Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4633 From: Glenys Lowery _ Subject: Re: Guiding principle/freedom Greetings Everyone, I have achieved the impossible! I have met a computer technician who knows less about computers than I do! My new computer has been returned to the retailer four times in the six days I've had it. As time has gone by, my persona when dealing with the technician involved has changed from being one of consideration - 'these things happen' - to something like Xena on steroids with PMS. I'm sorry to say that it was the latter persona that got results. So I'm with you again - I hope for good this time :-) Susi wrote: "No, I meant 'impinge'. But 'infringe' does just as well if you prefer it :-) Glenys....please help to expand my knowledge and tell me the definition of impinge. I do not have it in my dictionary that I can find." I see that you've got your definition now, Susi. They have virtually the same meaning which was why I was perfectly happen for you to 'correct' me. It didn't make any difference to what I was saying whatever word was used. "Can't the government in some countries imprison a person illegally, unjustifiably and without their consent? Isn't this an infringement of their inalienable God-given right to freedom. Certainly, one can control their reactions to a situation and thereby refuse to be 'frustrated' but no one can control the actions of those who have authority over them. I think our disagreement is due to a problem in definition and your assuming I meant to use the word 'infringe'. Who knows :-) Love Glenys' "I'm not sure about this? But just because some governments do this it does not make it right. Yes it is an infringement of their God-given right to freedom. I agree with that! True no one can control the actions of those who have authority over them, but I have not willingly given anyone authority over me." A rare individual! I have to say that many, many people and organisations have authority over me and I in turn, have authority over others. It seems to me that authority is part and parcel of creation and the fact that it is largely abused doesn't negate the principle. It's spiritual basis is outlined in Genesis when God gave man dominion over the earth and everything in it and developed as mankind formed communities and leaders were appointed. The first authority in my life that springs to mind is my employer. His authority is such that I'm dependent on him for my livelihood and by implication, my physical well-being. While strictly speaking, he is the only one who has authority over me in my workplace, my organization also has an elected governing Board which also has a measure of control over me because if they didn't like me that could put pressure on my boss to fire me. The authority held by my employer and the Board is by virtue of their position and and I have chosen it by being in their employment. On the other hand, I also have some authority over them by virtue of the skills, expertise and personal qualities I bring to the job. This authority is of a more subtle nature. Nevertheless, my employers have the greater authority by far. My bank manager also has authority over me because I have a mortgage on my home. Again, his authority impacts upon my well-being and again, I have chosen this. Rick has authority over me - and you - because as list moderator the buck stops with him. So he could establish a policy I may not agree with and thereby exert his authority over me. We recently saw JJ bow to Rick's authority on the matter of OT emails. Various national and local government agencies have authority over me which could be described as power of life and death. I have no doubts that a motivated government agency could wipe me off the planet if it so desired (although this would never happen in NZ :-). I acknowledge that I am partly responsible for these agencies having control over me because I have entered into a social contract with the State to provide me with certain services to enable me to live in a community. In return, I have handed over some of my God-given freedoms. In an ideal society, this concession should provide me - and others - with opportunities to experience greater freedom, not only as an individual but as a member of a community, but I accept that this is not always apparent. I think the principle still stands though. While there are people who have authority over me, I, in turn have authority over others, be it authority conferred on me by society - positional authority - or more nebulous but equally valid, moral authority. The lesson for me is to wisely use that authority to empower others to assist them reach their full potential. As far as I can see, the greater the authority one has, the greater the potential for service. You notice that those who have real authority are those who serve the most. Mother Theresa of Calcutta devoted her life to caring for the ill and oppressed and did not seek glory for herself. Yet Presidents, world and religious leaders, film and media personalities and royalty sought her out. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father yet was the greatest servant of all. He was also subject to secular authority and reminded us to 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's'. So after spending a good part of my life rebelling against authority - both that of my own and others - I have come to the conclusion that it is the natural order of things and that true authority always involves devotion to service and the upliftment of all. "Confession: I usually keep silent because of my own insecurities of not being able to express myself in an educated manner and much of what I express is often misinterpreted but I am learning to over come this fear so that my horizons can expand. It is difficult to put feelings into words as often the words do not exist that would accurately portray my true vision. (see I just have trouble with this but I'll keep trying.)" You're doing fine, Susi. We can all get inarticulate or lost for words at times, especially concerning matters that are deeply felt. You've obviously given many of us food for thought so don't you dare think of unsubing 'cos if you do we'll all descend on your site and spam you :-)))))) Love Glenys -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects. ~ Herman Melville Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4634 From: J J Dewey Subject: The Three Principles Glenys, Thank you for your fine article on authority. A certain amount of authority is needed to keep civilization together. If more people like yourself could be the authorities of the world it would be a much better place. I might remind newcomers that we had quite a few discussions at the beginning of this list about just and unjust use of authority. Question: Do you think that we can retain our blind spots and still attain spiritual enlightenment? The group has made some good observations about the blind spot. There are lots of correspondences possible and we, as a group, have explored the idea from several angles. Here's an interesting idea for you. Remember I said that the blind spot must be revealed from without rather than within? Now imagine God as one life in the beginning. Now imagine that It comes to a realization that something is missing in It's wholeness. Now imagine that God reflects Itself to infinity and by reflecting from the reflection the blind spot of even God is revealed. Creation thus illuminates a missing void in the life of the One God. As reflections of God we must also find and bring light to our blind spots. This is often hard on the old ego and there is a natural resistance for many to even acknowledge that a specific blind spot exists. True enlightenment does come as light is thrown on the dark areas. As with my singing voice I was reluctant to admit that much improvement was needed, but when the light was thrown on the truth of the matter I was forced to face it or live in a fantasy world. There may be blind spots in the formless worlds, but it does us little good to speculate on them at this stage of evolution. But in addition to the physical blind spot it is very beneficial for us to contemplate areas where they may exist within our seeing on the emotional, mental and personality levels. Yesterday we talked about the principle of freedom as a key that must be understood before we can make a knowing decision for the path of light. I do not want to offend anyone by suggesting that perhaps most of us have not yet reached this point, but, on the other hand, I would be negligent in my duty, if I knew points of preparation for the great Decision and failed to present them to you. It may be of interest to note that even if the average seeker decided he wanted to take the dark path that he would be far from acceptance into the Dark Brotherhood. If a such a person were to pursue the Left Hand Path it would take around seven lifetimes of selfishness before he would be considered a reliable disciple of Self. The Brotherhood of Light is not the only one who wants reliable disciples. The Dark Brothers have standards of their own and have little use for zealous servants with little understanding of their goals. The Dark Ones do seek to manipulate the masses through illusion and astral control and some crazy guy with a goal to become a demon is of little use to them. Perhaps the most distinctive difference, but also a subtle one, is the Principle of Freedom. If you go ask a hundred people on the street if they believe in maximum freedom for themselves and others you would probably get a hundred people saying yes. On the other hand, if you were able to examine their belief systems and how they play out in their voting and actions we would find that in many cases 99 out of the 100 support unnecessary restrictions of freedom. The problem arises where programs arise that restrict freedoms in areas out of a person's concern. If a person does not drink alcohol he is usually not bothered about restrictions on the freedom to drink. If a person is a vegetarian he is usually not bothered about restrictions on eating meat. If he does not go white water rafting then he is not bothered about restrictions on this type of recreation. If he does not take natural vitamins then he is not bothered about restrictions on their sale. There are exceptions, but the problem is that the majority are selfish enough to only be concerned about the restriction of freedom in areas that directly effect themselves. The trouble is that if we do not stand up for freedom for all, even those we disagree with, then the time will come that no one will stand up for us when our own freedoms are taken away. The reason I listed yesterday those five different areas where there is general disagreement about the use of freedom was not to crate arguments, but to illustrate that the understanding of freedom, even in a much above average group like this, is not a cut and dried thing. Only through touching the Spirit of God through the soul can two become one in the understanding of freedom. In considering the true application of freedom one must balance his thoughts through a triangle of principles. They are: (1) The Principle of Freedom (2) The Principle of Harmlessness (3) The Principle of Peace. Let us now pick a deed that we know is in error. Let us say a burglar breaks into your place sand steals your valuables. How has this person violated these three principles? Now let us pick a person who we generally believe was in the right - Jesus. Why was he accused of violating these principles? Were His accusers correct? By the way, when I attended that Christian group that Susi mentioned it was by invitation. I was also told I could ask questions. In giving them what they asked for I did not take any of their freedoms away. JJ Post No. keys-l: /199905-25/4635 From: "Christopher Wynter" Subject: The blind spot ... a single principle To remove the blind spot requires a change in perception ... The change in perception is to look inward rather than outward ... a single principle Inward is not a safe place to look but it is only when I am faced with the destruction of everything I have tried to create outside ... even God ... that I am forced to face the fear of that light ... and turn within for that is all that is left ... A Miracle is a change in perception ... The change in perception is to look inward rather than outward Why Mysticism in the first place ... ?? Why god ... why the goddess ...?? Why books and all that learning ... ?? mysticism was something created ... there is nothing that is secret ... even the mystical. Love is the mystery ... love of self ... the light only found within that has been labeled sin in the quest for power by my ancestors If I go back deep enough into my body's remembering, I can find underneath the mind's constant chatter The Void which contains all thought, all feeling, all knowing at it's source ... Pandora's Box My body, my DNA, is a living Library of past present and future. As I allow, I can access all, and every book that was ever written, and times before words but they are not safe ... because many were killed for that knowledge ... so I would rather read the censored words of others than face my own fears ... and my own truths ... My body remembers many songs, many tones ... some it resonates with, others are harsh and jarring ... yet contained within the sum of the infinite is the truth ... My body remembers in ancient times, having to keep these truths a secret .. because there were those who sought out the priest and priestess to kill them to take away their power or to use that power for their own ends My body remembers being male ... yet having breasts that fed the child, and the child being sacrificed in pagan ritual... My body remembers the duty of having a child to buy salvation from the church ... because the mystical knowledge my body held held was too precious to be revealed and too precious to allow to be abused My body remembers abusing that power and the vow made that I would forever hold that power hidden so I would never abuse again ... all these things and more are mysticism held within the body sought by the perception of lack ... kept secret for fear of their power ... this is why my body feared the remembering ... There is no mysticism ... only the fear of remembering the truth of who I already am ... Now, I know the reason why ... there is no mysticism only what I will not allow my body to remember and overcoming the fear of those memories is something I have allowed ... The Miracle of a single principle Those who consider my posts off topic could reconsider. Christopher Wynter Hobart, Tasmania wynter@bigpond.com Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4636 From "Jennifer Hampson" Subject: Re: Digest No. 1999-05-25 of The Keys of Knowledge List JJ wrote, "In our last post we gave five examples of possible distortions of freedom. Try and apply the principle of freedom to discover the true course to take to solve these problems." My guess is that the answer to any problems of this nature is to give all the opportunity to make decisions for themselves, even if they are not decisions which others regard as being in anyone's best interests, and in this way each of us is given the chance to take personal responsibility for ourselves. A recent example in my State in Australia is the controversy over the opening of a 'shooting gallery' where people can inject heroin in 'safe' conditions. Such a place, in my view (although millions would disagree) has an underlying assumption that drug users are victims, and are not capable of taking responsibility for their choices. The shooting gallery diminishes their opportunity to take personal responsibility and is hence a distortion of freedom, although many regard it as the opposite. If I as a government minister had the power too act on my opinion and close the gallery, it would look like I was infringing upon the freedom of others, but then again if I was elected to such a position of authority it would be through the voters, who would have to take responsibility for being part of a nation that voted me in, even if as an individual they did not vote for me. My goodness, this could go on forever until we got back to the 'fall' in the Garden of Eden, when I suppose we made the original decision to separate our will from the Will of God. This was possible because we were given free will. (Please God can I renegotiate my decision - I think I made a mistake!!??!!!***!!!???) Best wishes Jennifer Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4637 From: Marylin Subject: Re: Guiding principle/freedom Susi writes: "my dictionary does not have impinge.....I do hope you will help me out here ;-)" Hi Susi My 1966 dictionary does have impinge in it. impinge: (im-pinj'), v.i. [pinged, -pinging], [L. impingere , in-, in + pangere, to strike],1. to strike, hit, etc. (on, upon, or against), 2. to make inroads or encroach (on or upon),.--impinge'ment, n.-- imping'erm n, infringe: (in-fring'), v.t. [fringed, -fringing], [, L. ,in-, in + frangere, to break], to break (a law or agreement); violate. --infringe on (or upon), to break in on; encroach on (the rights, etc. of others), --in-fringement, n. -in-fring'er, n. Looks to me like both words could be used. Only a lawyer would want to pick them apart. Love and Light Marylin Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4638 From: Marylin Subject: Re: Blind Spot Test Diane Linen writes: "The content above is for the Metric impaired." Accurate description of me. Marylin Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4639 From: Diane Linen Subject: Re: Blind Spot Test Yep Marylin, It's an accurate description of my lack of knowledge of the subject. You might say it's one of my blind spots. :-) Now I need to find a ruler with both inches and centimeters on it. Diane Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4640 From: "Jennifer Hampson" Subject: Re: Digest No. 1999-05-24 of The Keys of Knowledge List JJ wrote, "For many, achieving the average is nothing to be excited about, but because of my struggle with my voice I was more satisfied to have an average voice in the real world than I was when I had a superstar voice in my imaginary world." "There is just something about a real achievement in the real world that is much more satisfying that quantum leaps in an illusionary one." Yes, there is comfort in 'knowing one's place', even if it is not as elevated as one would have thought or liked. This is something I am gradually coming to realize, and I am finding it quite humbling! JJ later wrote, "The within part of ourselves is never going to come forth and broadcast the blind spot to us. We must listen to the complaining and contrasting voices without and where there is consistency and repetition there may be an opportunity of self discovery." Most people mentioned blind spots about 'negative' attributes. I reckon we can also have blind spots about talents or 'positive' things. Your example of singing, JJ, reminded me of someone who was certain she was a poor public speaker. Had she cared to look outside herself at the evidence (people's applause, comments made after the talk etc.) instead of through her own self- condemnation and self-consciousness, she would have been enlightened to the fact that she was actually very good at it. The trouble with a blind spot (as they used to say in 'est') is that you don't know that you don't know you have it. So I agree the only clue to its existence is through external evidence. I have always found it much easier to see other people's shortcomings than my own (!), so I rely on a couple of people I trust, and who I know have my best interests at heart, to point out what is blindingly obvious to them about me, so I can do something about it. Jennifer Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4641 From: Travis Tabbal Subject: Re: The Reason to Restrict Freedoms J J Dewey wrote: "Travis gave a good answer on this:" Thanks.. ;) "Welcome Travis. We hope you come out of lurking more often." Hmm.. I may not have much choice, my lurking device seems to be malfunctioning. "You seem to be headed in the right direction with your answer. The trouble is that even if you or I were king of the world and had a responsibility to write the criteria for the restriction of freedom it still would be misinterpreted by future generations no matter how clear and accurate the presentation was." Very true. That's the reason I added the following: "It should all come down to one simple question: Did the action in question cause measurable damage to the victim?" That defines a set criteria in simple terms for the difference between exersizing freedom, and committing a crime. There are, of course, various ways to misinterpret that, as you mentioned. But the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Hopefully one could trust in a jury to tell the difference between freedom and criminal behaviour. That's the beauty of the system our founding fathers designed. It's been corrupted, that's why it no longer works. "The reason is that it takes a certain degree of soul contact to obtain a sense of the true principle of freedom. Therefore the best we can do as teachers is to present the principle as clear as word can be and attempt to inspire others to throw the principle of freedom across the soul so the desire for maximum freedom of spirit will burn in the hearts of the sons and daughters of this little planet. That's the great challenge then, is it not? To ignite the fires of freedom in all of humanity. It has begun, now we just need to fan it and make it grow. "The greatest temptation placed before us humans to assist the Dark Brothers is to get caught in the illusion that "to accomplish good, we must participate in an evil to remove freedom, for the trade off seems good." And again our forefathers warn us: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin When will people learn from the mistakes of the past? "extremely important to understand that the Beast represents a strong authority figure that we either give our freedoms to or takes them from us "for our own good." Freedom is for it's own good. It is a higher purpose by itself and should be respected and honored for that. "In our last post we gave five examples of possible distortions of freedom. Try and apply the principle of freedom to discover the true course to take to solve these problems. Grrrr... and I went and lost that one. I guess I better go locate the archive. Travis Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4642 From: Travis Tabbal Subject: Re: Liberal and Conservative Restrictions Hmmmm... on the other hand, maybe I'll just agree with Dave on those questions....... Travis Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-24/4643 From: Travis Tabbal Subject: Re: Blind Spot Test "Many thanks to all who responded so kindly to my plea for help. Us U.S.'ers have so much to learn from the rest of the world who aren'> metric impaired. I personally much prefer to buy gasoline by the gallon rather than the liter but that's probably because I get more for my purchase. ;-)" So glad to be of service, now I'll contribute to the use of bandwidth. :) 1 US Gallon = 3.78531 Liters. Most people would realize this and not allow the gas companies to charge significantly more for gas in Liters then gallons. So, since gas is about $1.35/Gallon here, it would be ~$0.36/Liter. Or I would have to go postal. By this fun line of logic, we would have higher speed limits too.. ~100 KPH. Travis Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4644 From: John Kosior Subject: Re: The Three Principles J J Dewey wrote: "In considering the true application of freedom one must balance his thoughts through a triangle of principles. They are: (1) The Principle of Freedom (2) The Principle of Harmlessness (3) The Principle of Peace. Let us now pick a deed that we know is in error. Let us say a burglar breaks into your place and steals your valuables. How has this person violated these three principles?" Good Morning All, I live by a rule, generally speaking, that states that if a question seems too simple, there is probably more there than meets the blind spot, I mean, "eye". Ok, so the burglar breaks into your place and steals your valuables. He has violated the three principles mentioned above. In reality though, he's violated them twice. Or more if you care to look at it that deeply. We would all agree that we have a right to live in security. Indeed we consider ourselves "free" to do that. Our burglar friend has stripped you of that freedom by violating your security. But the burglar has also stripped himself of a greater freedom. He has stripped himself of the freedom to live harmlessly. You see he had the choice of bringing harm on you or not. He had that "freedom". But he freely chose to do you harm. You on the other hand would never consider going out and doing harm to some stranger. But when the stranger breaks into your house, he becomes the burglar. Then he opens up the possibility that you might do him some harm. If not physically, at least mentally, emotionally, or within the confines of the law. When you act on your rights, and you file charges against the burglar, you are, no matter how "justified" you feel your actions, violating the principle of peace. Tough statement, so let me ask for help: Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. (KJV) Matt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. (KJV) But the burglar has violated the principle of peace as well. He did so when he violated your freedom of security. But as society would have it, when he is convicted of his crime, he has taken away from him, HIS freedom. So you go home in the secure knowledge that you are free to live in security again. But this time you have a burglar alarm installed at your place. Even though the burglar is behind bars, he is still stealing your freedom and placing restrictions on you. Meanwhile, the burglar is in jail considering how he might exact revenge on you for his plight and plots to do you harm. Violating the principle of harmlessness. If you hear of his threats to you, you take every step possible to restrict this man's freedom. After all, he has no freedom to exact harm on you. But you are now living in anticipation of possible harm, and as such the burglar is violating the principles of harmlessness AND peace. You, having been wounded in all three areas can easily become one who is restricting of "some" of the freedoms of others. The burglar, in harming and planning you harm you, is violating the principle of harmlessness. Which in turn has "forced" you to violate the principle of peace. "In as much as it concerns you, live at peace with all men". A bit more help: Matt 5:43-48 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, d good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans [do] so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (KJV) What I have been trying to illustrate is the very deep and cyclical nature of violating these three principles, and how we as a race have never been able to live solidly by these principles. Most would say we must restrict freedoms when rights are violated. And though I may agree from the standpoint of society and for the security of the innocent, I am also acutely aware of the direction that society is going. In the U.S., the number of prisons built is always on the rise. But so are the prison populations. And crime seems to be ever increasing. But why? Haven't we restricted the freedom of those who would do us harm? And aren't we ever increasing the numbers of people who's freedom we restrict? Yet, there is more crime. But take heart. Jesus said the times would be perilous when he returned. But that it's out of this anarchistic peril that the Sons of God would be revealed. I would submit to you that the things that JJ is about to present to us are extremely key in our future ability to choose real freedom, harmlessness, peace and Zoe'. I admire JJ's tact about this. He has said that the real decision is hard to make. Me thinks this an understatement. To live in real freedom, harmlessness, and peace, might just mean giving up your own life. Or put another way, you may have to submit only to the will of God, the life of God, and the Truth of God. Thus finally giving up your ego, your "life" (bios) for the hope of Zoe' (God's Life). But again we can take heart. Matt 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (KJV) So I choose to give up my way for the sake of THE Way. I choose to give up my opinion for sake of the Truth. And finally I choose to give up my very life (ego) for the sake of finding real life. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (NIV) Boy if that statement doesn't hit the ego.............. "Now let us pick a person who we generally believe was in the right - Jesus. Why was he accused of violating these principles? Were His accusers correct?" The accusers of Jesus' day operated from the illusion that they were good. Justified by the law of Moses. The religious leaders believed themselves free to place burdens on the people. Jesus comes along and calls them hypocrites. Luke 11:46 Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. (NIV) He is saying that they are not free to live like this. So from THEIR VIEWPOINT, He is restricting their freedom. Jesus attacks the moneychangers in the temple. From the viewpoint of the religious leaders, He was trying to cause great harm to their way of support and life. And finally Jesus comes right out and tells his disciples that He hasn't come to bring peace, but a sword. In every aspect it's easy to see that from the viewpoint of His accusers, He was in fact violating the above principles. But ultimately, He released them to be themselves, in opposition to Him. (freedom) They went out to arrest Him, and though He could have called angels to destroy them all, He chose not to. (harmlessness) And finally, to protect there own way of life, they killed him. But He had already said that no man would take His life, but that He would lay it down willingly. (peace) And He prayed for His murderer's forgiveness. (peace) Then He said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit". (Peace) In my life I've lived more like the religious leaders than I have like Jesus. But I'm preparing and being prepared to finally make that ever fateful decision to live in, by and through ALL of the principles of Truth. Right now I'm taking as many of the small steps as I can to one day be able to Truly take the big step. Which day may appear at any time. Sorry about the looooooooooooooooooooong post. :) Wishing You Wisdom In Every Decisive Moment, John PS: Here's one more thought I'd like to share about living in freedom. Zech 7:9 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. (NIV) If you think about it, it sure does seem like a strange definition for justice, no? Just a thought. Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4645 From: John Kosior Subject: Re: The Three Principles Editor's Note: Duplicate post of No. 4644 Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4646 From: Diane Linen Subject: Re: Blind Spot Test Travis Tabbal wrote: "Most people would realize this and not allow the gas companies to charge significantly more for gas in Liters then gallons. So, since gas is about $1.35/Gallon here, it would be ~$0.36/Liter. Or I would have to go postal. Travis" There are places in the US where gas is horrendous but I pay .98 for a gallon. Diane Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4647 From: Diane Linen Subject: Re: Blind Spot Test Travis Tabbal wrote: "1 US Gallon = 3.78531 Liters. Most people would realize this and not allow the gas companies to charge significantly more for gas in Liters then gallons. So, since gas is about $1.35/Gallon here, it would be ~$0.36/Liter. Or I would have to go postal. LOL My mistake again. I thought you paid your 1.35 for one liter not a gallon. Diane Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4648 From: Susi Subject: Freedom/authority/the three principles Glenys, I must agree with you on the authority issue......though I still do not feel that I have willingly given authority to anyone over my life other than God. I guess the mortgage could be argued about whether it is authority or a mutual agreement entered into but I'm still not sure I would say that the bank has authority over me. I could always choose to not pay and then they would exercise their right to foreclose, but isn't that an agreement? I'm just saying that the authorities that reside over me and feel that they can control my actions by restricting my freedoms have not been by my choice (at least in this lifetime). Now after typing the above I went to the dictionary again and looked up authority. I am corrected because in some sense I am giving list members authority over me by maybe allowing some of what is said here to influence my thoughts through your knowledge.......So is this willingly giving authority to all of you even if I am still the one that must make the finale choice in regards to how I use or do not use this knowledge? I'm a bit confused, but that is not new ;-) Anyone can respond to this and I will make my choice once the knowledge is presented. Thank you for your encouragement to stick with the list, I felt welcomed. JJ says: "By the way, when I attended that Christian group that Susi mentioned it was by invitation. I was also told I could ask questions. In giving them what they asked for I did not take any of their freedoms away." I did not mean to imply that you did, what I was trying to show was that infringe or impinge just didn't fit into my beliefs simply because the word feels to broad and is open to misinterpretation. I used that as an example....I really didn't mean to ruffle so many feathers. John K says: "To live in real freedom, harmlessness, and peace, might just mean giving up your own life. Or put another way, you may have to submit only to the will of God, the life of God, and the Truth of God. Thus finally giving up your ego, your "life" (bios) for the hope of Zoe' (God's Life)" I just had to acknowledge your entire post as truth.....this part rang very clear for me. Would Gandhi be a good example of one who obtained this level of enlightenment? "(1) The Principle of Freedom "(2) The Principle of Harmlessness "(3) The Principle of Peace. "Let us now pick a deed that we know is in error. Let us say a burglar breaks into your place sand steals your valuables. How has this person violated these three principles? He has broken your peace and harmed your sense of security and taken away your freedom to enjoy your peace and security. Maybe that was to simple an answer." "Now let us pick a person who we generally believe was in the right - Jesus. Why was he accused of violating these principles? Because his accusers had made their own laws and standards and forgotten Gods words or over time Gods words had been misinterpreted and his accusers felt they were doing right by not allowing Jesus to challenge their laws??? Were His accusers correct?" Not in my opinion. Jesus was trying to help the good of all while his accusers were tying to maintain their power or authority which was falsely imposed upon all. These little snips are what JJ wrote: "The trouble is that even if you or I were king of the world and had a responsibility to write the criteria for the restriction of freedom it still would be misinterpreted by future generations no matter how clear and accurate the presentation was." and "The only freedom that should be restricted are actions that take away more freedom or rights of the group or individuals than is added." and "To allow freedom so that evil and harm is possible is the path of light for in the end the illusion of evil is dispelled and the power to BECOME is amplified." These are more reasons why I feel it is not right to restrict freedom. I am confused still on your opinion JJ, is there ever a freedom that should be restricted as in the middle snip or is there not a freedom that should be restricted as in your two other snips? I'm wondering if you already answered your question for us within your post of Week 1999-21: Message 353? Thank you all for offering guidance. ========================================================================= === "The world is so full of a number of things, I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings" Robert Louis Stevenson Many Blessings;-) Susi Alexander The Healing Hearth "http://www.healinghearth.com" Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4649 From: "David Curtis" Subject: Re: The Three Principles "Let us now pick a deed that we know is in error. Let us say a burglar breaks into your place sand steals your valuables. How has this person violated these three principles?" "(1) The Principle of Freedom" This person has taken away your freedom to feel safe in your home. They have taken your valuables and thus have taken away your freedom to store those valuable without worry. On the flip side, as soon as the burglar is caught by the police, he has forfeited nearly all of his own freedoms. "(2) The Principle of Harmlessness" Harm 1: You'll have to pay for the window the burglar broke to get into your house. Harm 2: You'll very likely never see those valuables again. Harm 3: You probably will no longer feel safe in your own home and many more.... "(3) The Principle of Peace." I don't remember ever hearing of an incident where a burglar breaks into someone's house and confronts the victim with the words, "I come in peace, now give me everything you own". The Principle of Peace was violated the moment the burglar decided to break into an innocent persons house. - Dave Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4650 From: Terrance R Brennan Subject: Re: Freedom/authority/the three principles Susi writes: "Glenys, I must agree with you on the authority issue......though I still do not feel that I have willingly given authority to anyone over my life other than God." Hi, um, forgot your name. It seems to me your confusion regarding authority may revolve around what makes a good authority or a bad authority. What determines if an authority is good or bad is how it's earned. For example, I give JJ authority as a teacher because he's proven he can give good answers to questions that satisfy me which I haven't been able to get elsewhere. Nevertheless, if I wasn't satisfied with his answers I could take back my power I've given him and search for answers in other places, no strings attached. But someone who has TAKEN authority unjustly is the kind to watch out for. For example, I may be unhappy with how my tax money was spent. But if I withdraw my financial support I would be thrown in jail. The government has forcibly taken my power of decision away from me regarding my money, claiming they know better how to spend my 'tithe' better than I, hence setting itself up as an authority regardless of what I think. Also, if a citizen of a country run by a dictator went against his wishes and slandered him, for example, his punishment might be death. But in the U.S. it's not our lives that our taken away but our freedoms and lifestyles to the extent that it's the next closest thing. For example, an employee may discover that some upper management people are stealing from the profits. If he voices this to the 'wrong' people he may be in danger of getting fired. There might be an unspoken threat that if the employee ever divulges this he WILL be fired and have a very hard time getting another job in the same city. I suddenly feel like I'm not making any sense. Oh well, hope I've helped. Have you checked back in the archives regarding the discussion on the Beast and Unjust authority? Everything's covered there. Attempting to feel the force, Rob Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4651 From: Terrance R Brennan Subject: Re: The Three Principles JJ Dewey writes: "In considering the true application of freedom one must balance his thoughts through a triangle of principles." "They are: (1) The Principle of Freedom (2) The Principle of Harmlessness (3) The Principle of Peace." "Let us now pick a deed that we know is in error. Let us say a burglar breaks into your place sand steals your valuables. How has this person violated these three principles?" I can only answer through what I've learned through reading Ayn Rand's philosophy regarding "....Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...." Perhaps there's some correspondences. For those unfamiliar with her work, she basically says that life is a self-sustaining, self- generating process, or something like that. All rights stem from the basic right to engage in any action which results in the continued sustainment of your life. So the right to own property must be included because you need food to live which must be earned and thus owned, you must own a refrigerator to store the food and a home to store the fridge, and lastly you need real estate to setup your home. In order to pursue any actions that result in the sustainment of your own life you need the liberty to do so. Two down (Life, Liberty) 1 to go (happiness). The burglar violates the right to own property by stealing. I suppose this right falls under the Principle of Freedom. The burglar also harms the owner by breaking and entering the property of the home. The owner may now feel unsafe in her house and may feel like she has to look over her back every time she's outside. Thus she was harmed emotionally. The owner may have believed that her home was a safe place for herself and her property--as well she should. The burglar shattered that belief, thus harming her mentally. So the Principle of Harmlessness was violated. In an enlightened society each individuals right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be respected with the utmost sacredness. As a consequence, peace would result. The burglar's actions would cause a stir in any society with a degree of respect for other's rights, hence the Principle of Peace was violated. "Now let us pick a person who we generally believe was in the right - Jesus. Why was he accused of violating these principles? Were His accusers correct?" Those in power during Jesus' time had it all backwards. They believed that a free, harmless, peaceful society could happen only by force from an outside authority, thus becoming hypocrites. Jesus caused quite a stir, I'm sure, among the people and those in power if he taught that lasting freedom, harmlessness, and peace could only be brought about by the free-will decision of everyone. Therefore his accusers felt justified in their accusations since it went against their "freedom, harmlessness, and peace-by-force" philosophy. Robi-wan Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4652 From: Samu Karlsson Subject: Re: Blind Spot Test Travis Tabbal wrote: "Most people would realize this and not allow the gas companies to charge significantly more for gas in Liters then gallons. So, since gas is about $1.35/Gallon here, it would be ~$0.36/Liter. Or I would have to go postal. " "There are places in the US where gas is horrendous but I pay .98 for a gallon. Diane" There are places in the world where gas is about 5.5 fmk/liter, and if I convert that to feet and stones, oops I mean bucks and gallons, :) we end up with the should-I-laugh-or-shed-a-tear number of ~$3.8/Gallon. One of the reasons this dude doesn't own an automobilical vehicle right now. Love (Isn't that a gas-station chain in the SW US? I remember their prices weren't as heartless as those of the others:) Much warm fuel of love in your engines, many beautiful miles on your paths, Samu :) Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4653 From: Diane Linen Subject: Re: The Blind Spot charlene ordaz wrote: "Samu, Wow, what a great post! You did it again. : ) Many blessings to all," SAmu is a beautiful light and inspiration to me. I just love it when he thinks aloud or in his email. Diane Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4654 From: Samu Karlsson Subject: Re: The Blind Spot Diane writes: "SAmu is a beautiful light and inspiration to me. I just love it when he thinks aloud or in his email." Ahhh dear Diane, thank you so very much... I am not so sure my thinking aloud part is always so logical and clear, but even when something like that is shared with a group of great people who are willing to take it one step further, together we can reach the intangible. In this celestial human universe, we are all stars that shine upon each other, we are all water that refresh, we are all part of the whole, and what that whole stands for depends solely on us :) Let there be light, and rock 'n' roll! :D Big hugs!!! Samu :) Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-25/4655 From: Diane Linen Subject: Re: The Blind Spot Samu Karlsson wrote: "Diane writes: "SAmu is a beautiful light and inspiration to me. I just love it when he thinks aloud or in his email." "Ahhh dear Diane, thank you so very much... I am not so sure my thinking aloud part is always so logical and clear, but even when something like that is shared with a group of great people who are willing to take it one step further, together we can reach the intangible. In this celestial human universe, we are all stars that shine upon each other, we are all water that refresh, we are all part of the whole, and what that whole stands for depends solely on us :) Let there be light, and rock'n'roll! :D Big hugs!!! Samu :)" OOOH Thanks for the big hugs Samu. I needed them. :-) What you do for me when you "think aloud" in your posts is you start me thinking in different directions. You start the snowball rolling so-to-speak. I say to myself. aHA! That's *it*! And I go on to other thoughts thanks to you and others on the list too. This is such a great place; I love everybody. Big Hugs!!! Diane Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4656 From: Glenys Lowery Subject: Re: Freedom/Authority/The three Principles Hi Susi, "Glenys, I must agree with you on the authority issue......though I still do not feel that I have willingly given authority to anyone over my life other than God. I guess the mortgage could be argued about whether it is authority or a mutual agreement entered into but I'm still not sure I would say that the bank has authority over me. I could always choose to not pay and then they would exercise their right to foreclose, but isn't that an agreement?" Yes, it is but in my view it is an agreement that is a legal contract and therefore under the full protection (authority) of the law. And it is heavily weighted against me. My bank manager can increase my interest rate without my agreement, impose unreasonable charges on me for administering the loan and foreclose for the puniest of reasons at very short notice. Therefore, he has authority over me in respect of my mortgage and I have freely chosen it so I can eventually own my own home. It is an authority that I have allowed because it will give me more freedom in the future. "I'm just saying that the authorities that reside over me and feel that they can control my actions by restricting my freedoms have not been by my choice (at least in this lifetime)." I understand what you're saying. I just have a different view and see my employer, my bank manager and many others as having an authority over me that I have chosen, even if unconsciously in some cases. The reason we resist the concept of authority is because we see it being abused so often. But as I said in my earlier email, the abuses don't negate the life-giving principle. If we didn't have structure and order based on systems of authority, we would be living in chaos. Authority enables specialization and greater freedom eg I have given my mechanic authority over me with respect to my car because I acknowledge that he has mechanical expertise that I will never have. If I didn't have him and my car broke down, I wouldn't have the knowledge to get it going, thereby limiting my freedom (of movement). On the other hand, my mechanic has sought my advice over a matter that I have expertise in because he recognizes my authority in a particular area. "Now after typing the above I went to the dictionary again and looked up authority. I am corrected because in some sense I am giving list members authority over me by maybe allowing some of what is said here to influence my thoughts through your knowledge.......So is this willingly giving authority to all of you even if I am still the one that must make the finale choice in regards to how I use or do not use this knowledge?" Well, at the risk of seeming argumentative I don't see that as giving list members your authority :-)) I guess it's all a matter of perception and I admit that I have thought about authority a lot because it has been a very real problem for a large part of my life and I had a blind spot concerning it which caused me to rebel against any kind of authority. I think I've achieved some balance now but who knows. I'm reminded of the saying, "I know the point of balance well; I've passed it many times' :-) Love Glenys Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4657 From: Marylin Subject: Re: The Three Principles John Kosior writes: "Zech 7:9 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. (NIV)" "If you think about it, it sure does seem like a strange definition for justice, no?" "Just a thought." Sorry, John, I don't find anything strange about it at all. After listening to the OJ trial and the "actor" lawyers, it seemed to me that neither one understood much about justice. Justice is one of the two-edged swords talked about in the bible. It cuts both ways. Now, I just had a thought. Did you put that question out just to see what kind of response you would get? lol Marylin Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4658 From: Marylin Subject: Re: Freedom/authority/the three principles Susi writes: "I am corrected because in some sense I am giving list members authority over me by maybe allowing some of what is said here to influence my thoughts through your knowledge.......So is this willingly giving authority to all of you even if I am still the one that must make the finale choice in regards to how I use or do not use this knowledge? I'm a bit confused, but that is not new ;-) Anyone can respond to this and I will make my choice once the knowledge is presented. Thank you for your encouragement to stick with the list, I felt welcomed." Hi Susi It still seems to me that if we lose authority it is because we have allowed it to happen. And if we choose not to lose authority it is our own personal decision. I guess where a mortgage is concerned, the bank only has authority over the piece of paper you signed in agreement. At one time, when I was in your shoes, I challenged the bank when they tried to maintain "control". Control breeds fear and fear can only exist in the lack of faith in God. Don't be afraid of being "feisty" and standing up for number one (you). Also don't forget, honey draws more flies than vinegar. Love and Light Marylin Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4659 From: Marylin Subject: Re: Freedom/authority/the three principles jedi_rob writes: "What determines if an authority is good or bad is how it's earned. For example, I give JJ authority as a teacher because he's proven he can give good answers to questions that satisfy me which I haven't been able to get elsewhere. Nevertheless, if I wasn't satisfied with his answers I could take back my power I've given him and search for answers in other places, no strings attached." "What determines if an authority is good or bad is how it's earned. For example, I give JJ authority as a teacher because he's proven he can give good answers to questions that satisfy me which I haven't been able to get elsewhere. Nevertheless, if I wasn't satisfied with his answers I could take back my power I've given him and search for answers in other places, no strings attached." But have we really given authority to JJ. He certainly hasn't asked for it. He has merely made an offer to teach and it was the responsibility of each one on this list to choose to learn or not to learn. He has the freedom to make an offer which breaks none of the three principles. We have the freedom to accept or decline which also breaks none of the three principles. With knowledge comes responsibility. Marylin Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4660 From: John Kosior Subject: Re: The Three Principles Marylin wrote: "John Kosior wrote: "Zech 7:9 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another." "If you think about it, it sure does seem like a strange definition for justice, no?" "Now, I just had a thought. Did you put that question out just to see what kind of response you would get? Lol Marylin" Oh no! They're on to me! :o) Hi Marylin. No, I wouldn't post something just to see the response. :) Oh no. Not me. :) Actually, it's become an issue with me that when posting on the internet, it's easy to write what you want to say, but it's very difficult to write how you want to say it. I have a friend that is a lurker on this list who knows me very well. Now because of our many hours of past conversations, when she reads something I've posted, she already knows in her mind just how I'd say it, and just what I meant. How convenient that is. For instance, I could tell you that every morning, I tell my girlfriend how good she looks. Oh, what a sweet thing to say, right? But how would you know that I say that when she first gets up from the bed, her hair all over the place, those little crinkly lines on her face from sleeping on the bunched up sheets and that nasty stuff that builds up in your eyes? And how would you know that when I said that, I had the biggest, warmest, most loving and comforting smile on my face that communicated past any offense that I could see into her soul and beheld the true beauty there? You see how many words it takes to communicate what's said with just one smile? That's a tough one for me. Because so much of what I say is said with a smile on my face. Sometimes I'm saying something facetiously and the expression I use on my face is the real communicator. Or sometimes I might say something "serious" :), but the smile says I love You, MORE than what I'm trying to tell You. And how do you communicate THAT in a post? You can bet that when I wrote "...........strange definition for justice, no?", I had a big old grin on my face. And that grin said, "Isn't that the most beautiful definition of justice you've ever heard?". My great hope is that Holy Spirit in you communicates to you what I can't. On this list I feel assured. There seems to be an awful lot of soul contact around here. :)* *(smile indicates warm feelings felt for his fellow keysters) Warm Hugs All Around, John Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4661 From: John Kosior Subject: Re: Freedom/authority/the three principles Robi-Wan Wrote: ".......I give JJ authority as a teacher because he's proven he can give good answers to questions that satisfy me............" Marylin Wrote: "But have we really given authority to JJ?" Hi Folks, You know, it's funny the way this question of authority is generally talked about with more extreme positions than other topics. Even the bible has some "apparently" opposing views on the subject. Rom 13:1-2 1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment [correction] on themselves. (NIV) Then: Col 2:20-23 20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. (NIV) Now did Holy Spirit inspire both of these statements? And what about all of the other teachings in the bible that some claim to be opposing each other? I've discovered along the way just why such "oppositions" are taught. The perfect example of this is found in the rendering of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. For every scripture the devil quoted, Jesus was ready with the balancing (opposing) scripture. The reason that the bible is written this way is that in order to perceive what you see, you must have both eyes open. Religions of every sort have been instituted throughout history based on half the scriptures, at the expense of the other half. It's the whole "duality" thing. We just learned that if we use only one eye or the other that we will operate with a blind spot. The same applies when we look at any one statement in the bible without it's balancing reference. Then, instead of looking for it's opposition, we can seek to know it's yin and it's yang. Both eyes open, presenting us with one, cohesive image. The Truth. I used to say (in my cruder days:) that most staunch "believers" in the bible only believed half of what was there. The other half they wrote down on every roll of toilet paper they owned. Of course I'm not so crude now. :o) But the point is that if we assume for ourselves any one position, at the expense of balance, we will only find that we have half the truth, and that ain't no truth at all. In the two scriptures above, we're told that we should submit to the governing authorities, but that we are not bound by the rules of this world. Sounds like a tough balancing act to me. That is until I accept that both statements balance themselves in God. Yes, I submit to the governing authorities, but knowing that those governing authorities are instituted by God, I realize that I am not living by the rules of this world, but by the higher rule of Love, respect, honor and humility. Of course I'm not perfect in this, but if I can avoid taking strong positions left or right, and instead look with both eyes for the balance in God, then I can walk that narrow and straight path that Jesus speaks of. In this I often feel like a toddler taking his first awkward steps. But what joy there is for the toddler when they run into the arms of Abba! :) May Our Yin Always Balance Our Yang, :o) John Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4662 From: Susi Subject: RE: Glenys authority Glenys wrote: "The reason we resist the concept of authority is because we see it being abused so often. " This really resonates in me... LoL "I'm reminded of the saying, "I know the point of balance well; I've passed it many times' :)" and this too......LoL louder ;-) Thank you for the smiles this morning! Many Blessings;-) Susi Alexander The Healing Hearth "http://www.healinghearth.com" Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4663 From: Susi Subject: Re: marylin authority "Hi Susi, It still seems to me that if we lose authority it is because we have allowed it to happen. And if we choose not to lose authority it is our own personal decision." this is true. "I guess where a mortgage is concerned, the bank only has authority over the piece of paper you signed in agreement." Agreement is the key word, I can always look for another bank if my current one does something I do not like and then I would be in agreement with a new bank. This is why I really don't feel it is authority because I have not given control away completely and I can take back their false feeling of authority over me simply by refinancing as I just did May 4th ;-) This had nothing to do with control or authority though, it was simply a good financial move. "At one time, when I was in your shoes, I challenged the bank when they tried to maintain "control". Oh gosh Marylin I hope you didn't misunderstand and think we were being foreclosed on or having difficulty. I just used that as an example. "Control breeds fear and fear can only exist in the lack of faith in God. Don't be afraid of being "feisty" and standing up for number one (you). Also don't forget, honey draws more flies than vinegar. Love and Light Marylin" I went through a whole control issue about 6 years ago and as we have talked about the pendulum effect on this list I must say that to break the control and regain my faith that I had misplaced in my teenage years I swung that pendulum as far south as I could get it to go.......LOL ;-) Boy I really broke those chains that bind and became quite self centered then the pendulum swung back and I had another power struggle then back the other way and so on and so forth until finally a few years ago I became very balanced and don't feel the need to challenge control too much anymore, instead I change, I adapt, I over come and move on.......Oh and I love honey ;-) but vinegar can be so cleansing at times don't you think..... Smiles for the day.....happy thoughts to all (unless you don't want them then you are free to ignore me...lol) Many Blessings;-) Susi Alexander The Healing Hearth "http://www.healinghearth.com" Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4664 From: Susi Subject: RE: John K authority/body language ;-) John K wrote: "That is until I accept that both statements balance themselves in God." Yes, I submit to the governing authorities, but knowing that those governing authorities are instituted by God, I realize that I am not living by the rules of this world, but by the higher rule of Love, respect, honor and humility. Of course I'm not perfect in this, but if I can avoid taking strong positions left or right, and instead look with both eyes for the balance in God, Yes.....and in your other post of the day.......the one about words in a Post how they have a hard time portraying the true meaning behind what is typed .....lack of body language and all well thank you for both of these posts today because I think you have finally hit the nail on the head with this one. Now I know authority has been covered earlier on so If no one else is opposed I will let this one go and hopefully learn a bit from the Three principles that JJ is trying to teach. (body language: My whole body is smiling, mountains, forests, & twinkles in my eyes, the sun beams through and warms me and I send this energy back out to all, and finally the gentle breeze outside beckons me to come and play so I bid you all good day for a while and I hope the happiness I'm enjoying transmits to all of you in some positive way) Many Blessings;-) Susi Alexander The Healing Hearth "http://www.healinghearth.com" Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4665 From: (Richard/ Sharon) Subject: Authority Several years ago, when we moved to Washington state and bought our home on 40 acres, we willingly signed a contract, that at the time seemed to be in our favor, however we soon discovered we had given away our authority to individuals that did not have our interests at heart, nor should they have, we drew up the contract, in order to change this we went to the bank, once again to sign away our authority because we were looking for someone outside of ourselves to save us. The bank wanted something we did not have to give, (money) or we would not have gone to them in the for help, finally we understood the only help we could look for was from ourselves. We went deep within ourselves and saw that we could be our only safe outlet, so we declared aloud that we were in charge and the universe would provide. As you have probably guessed, we needed a mortgage to get out from under the individuals carrying paper (mortgage), I know this next part will sound made-up, but it's true, as soon as we decided to take charge of our lives, the money we need for the bank to give us a loan came in from a source we didn't know still existed, *Richard's brother sold their parents house) once that happened the loan came through with no problem, the individuals carrying paper were paid off, then 20 acres were sold, bank was paid off no debt to anyone. Sorry for going on for so long, but we found that authority goes wherever we will it to go, we can use it against ourselves or for our favor, we have power we haven't even begun to touch. I find some our greatest power comes from the geat minds and loving hearts on this list. thanks for listening, love to all, sharon Post No. keys-l: /1999-05-26/4666 From: Rick Audette Subject: Latest list Keysters list 5/26/99 Adrian Bradley mailto:adrian.bradley@diamond.co.uk _______ United Kingdom Alex Appelman mailto:A.M.M.F.Appelman@students.med.uu.nl _______ Netherlands Alexis Washburn mailto:buffy_corvan@yahoo.com Amit Wadhwani mailto:chasm_god@hotmail.com Andrew Perkins mailto:NEDWAERN@aol.com Angela Buffalow mailto:DEVIST8ME@AOL.COM Anni Ida West [Dec. 2] mailto:aiw@ats.dk _______ Aarhus, Denmark _______ http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Terrace/2242 _______ ICQ 12376564 AntonioJosephMartin mailto:d055777c@dc.seflin.org _______ http://www.collegeclub.com/~d055777c/ Aroonas mailto:NeoCrist@nirvanet.net _______ http://homepages.infoseek.com/~wizardgm/ars.html Athene Ho mailto:weirdnerd@collegemail.com Ben Thomas mailto:anthrop@micron.net Barncastle mailto:tlbarnca@cats.ucsc.edu Becky Priddy mailto:Celerygirl@aol.com Becky Ryan mailto:bdryan@sat.net _______ Palestine, TX Benjamin Tang mailto:vin_tae@yahoo.com Betty L. Norem [March 1] mailto:BNOREM@aol.com _______ Panama City, Florida Beverly J Salzman mailto:BevSalzman@aol.com Bret Walters mailto:h1817@mcleod.net Brian S. Weis mailto:Brainwise@aol.com _______ Bucks County, PA _______ ICQ 20234126 Brian Loehr mailto:vrcat@teleport.com Bruce Tracy mailto:indexer@lightspeed.net Carmen Cuadra mailto:CCu2946845@aol.com _______ Connecticut Carole Jarrett mailto:CaroleJarr@aol.com Carolyn Elaine Mille.. Cheryl Bane mailto:Cheryl.Bane@cna.com Cheryl Schumacher-Fr.. Christopher Wynter mailto:wynter@bigpond.com _______ Hobart, Tasmania _______ http://www.anunda.com/ Clive Culbertson [August 28] mailto:clive.culbertson@virgin.net _______ N.Ireland http://homepage.virgin.net/clive.culbertson D. Dailey mailto:denzera@mindspring.com Damon Amaeous mailto:firedraake@earthlink.net David Curtis mailto:davec@accessld.com _______ Salt Lake City, Utah David Goddard mailto:david@footdoot.force9.co.uk _______ United Kingdom http://www.footdoot.force9.co.uk/ David Smith mailto:davidbear@kachina.net _______ http://www.starknowledge.com/ David Teller mailto:tellercreations@hotmail.com _______ New York,NY http://www.danwinter.com/the_gift Debbie Mazur mailto:Chantillyd@aol.com Deborah Brazo mailto:athara@ida.net _______ Rigby, Idaho Deborah Smith-Copado mailto:Starshnjoy@