Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


possibility last won the day on July 20 2018

possibility had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Good

About possibility

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I guess it depends on the level of interaction and compliance (or homogeneity) required by both yourself and the group. If no one's going to take issue with you respectfully opting out of certain elements (creeds, responses, etc), and you can be considerate of their customs and traditions (such as standing, sitting, silence or holding/shaking hands), then it really only depends on your own reasons for attending. I imagine 'group thought' has the potential to interfere at any level of community interaction, from family/social gatherings to election campaigns or celebrations of nationalism. Some individuals are perhaps more sensitive to the homogeneity of their surroundings, and feel more comfortable or secure when surrounded by like-minded people. Whether that means they alter their own thinking/behaviour to match, try to alter someone else's thinking/behaviour, choose to reject the group or the individual, or compartmentalise their thinking and manage the discord internally is a choice only they can make. If you consider yourself to be a 'freethinker' in every respect, and you're open to the diversity of thinking that continually challenges 'group thought' but also enables you to be comfortable interacting respectfully with thinkers who perhaps choose not to be so free, then I believe you can attend a church regularly and remain a freethinker. It is a big IF, though. But I don't know if those in the 'freethinkers organisation' Jack describes in Finland would be as freethinking as they might imagine themselves to be. I recognise the initial intent: to remove the religious obligation imposed by the state. But to form an organisation, especially one that now seems to directly oppose a particular way of thinking, kind of defeats the purpose of free thinking, doesn't it? Freethinkers are more like PC, as far as I can see.
  2. My son has many trusted teachers to go to, plus his father is a teacher at the school, and I also work there. We are monitoring this very closely - believe me - and we're continually surprised when teachers mention that bullying has occurred. My son has no poker face - if he's upset, afraid or angry, he will show it. But he genuinely loves being at school, has friends and does well in all his classes. There is no particular kid who is tormenting him, either. There was a few years ago (his parent was the one I mentioned) but we quickly put a stop to that. His father was also very small in his early teens, and was bullied - he coped by joking back or picking fights, and was prepared to take a beating for it, although he caused enough damage that eventually they grew wary of him. But he knows his son will not choose that path. As a teacher, too, he knows what's available in the form of help or 'protection', where these options lead and what they will teach his son long term. I know he will 'raise holy hell' if he ever catches a kid in the act, but he's confident there has been no lasting negative impact on his son. There is no right or wrong here. What a kid should have to go through is not set in stone anywhere, as far as I can see. You may think these other choices are ones that should be taken, but I am not so sure they will benefit him long term. Why do you consider it 'unhealthy' to absorb humiliation if you agree it's a natural reaction that everyone experiences? I would never insist that anyone absorb humiliation or pain, but why must we try to avoid feeling what is natural? We are motivated to avoid or otherwise respond to pain, humiliation and loss as if we are somehow entitled to live our lives free of them. As humans we are more than capable of withstanding all three to a much higher degree than we often choose to. I think Jesus showed us that as much as he taught us anything else about what it means to be human. But when we place him on a pedestal and focus on his divinity, I think we fail to understand what taking up the cross and following him really means. Or perhaps we don't want to.
  3. Thormas I realise this thread has changed direction again, but if you'll indulge me a little longer... I have the opposite experience: that once the victim of bullying, one would never stoop to that behavior. It is not merely the experience of being bullied (which is never in a vacuum), it is our prior experiences, the security and love of family and friends (and the resulting sense of self) before, during and after being bullied. Again, my experience is different. It also doesn't just happen because you are bullied. I agree - I said it was one of several possible outcomes, based on my understanding of those who bully. You said you have not seen it happen, based on your understanding of victims of bullying. I don't see this as an opposite experience of the same thing at all. But when you say 'that behaviour', your words seem to potentially limit what you mean by bullying to a particular behaviour. I recognise that may not be so in all cases, and that, as you say, it comes down to the surrounding experiences. Yes, they would never stoop to that behaviour, but often they may also resolve to never finding themselves in a position of diminished power or helplessness again. The strategies one might employ to avoid that position amount to maintaining control or gaining the upper hand in some situations, while actively avoiding others. So a kid who changes school as a result of bullying can actively avoid a bullying situation at his new school by, for instance, surrounding himself with 'friends' over whom he feels he has an advantage. This can even carry on peacefully and without incident as long as everyone understands their place. But if one of these 'friends' threatens his sense of security (by disagreeing with him or being friends with someone else he doesn't like, for instance), he may often employ bullying tactics (different to those he experienced, of course) to try and restore his advantage and therefore his sense of security. He won't see it as bullying, though - it is self-protection because he is the one who feels threatened. But if he cannot admit to feeling threatened (which would mean admitting fear), he may project his fear outward, blaming the other kid for being the cause of the rift. This may not always happen - but it does happen. ...to teach them also to seek help or protect themselves seems right (and self-protection in a continuum from the joking back to the aforementioned lawyer). But why does your kid get a detention if they are actively trying to avoid a bullying situation? I agree on the bigger picture but if the bully doesn't see it........... The self-protection continuum you mention are tactics to either actively avoid bullying situations or regain the upper hand. But it seems to me that you have to position the one employing these tactics as a victim of bullying in order for many of them (not all) to not be seen as 'bullying' tactics in themselves. In the same way, I've had discussions with parents who insist that their child's repeated physical humiliation of my son is categorically not bullying, but the normal 'rough and tumble' behaviour of 'friends'. The fact that my son is at a physical disadvantage by being much smaller apparently does not make their son a 'bully'. So I have to position my son as inherently inferior and therefore a 'victim' in order for the action to be recognised as bullying. And the detention I mentioned was in reference to my son taking the option of striking back, not avoidance - when a much bigger kid the same age is sitting on top of you 'just for a joke', there are limited options available to make it stop (particularly when you have a speech impediment that makes it difficult to use words in stressful situations). He chose an effective self-protection tactic, and copped a detention (along with the other kid) for 'fighting'. He was nine at the time. That kid stopped, but it was far from the first or the last incident. I have taught my son, now thirteen, to understand that these bullying incidents are less about his size than about the fears we all experience and the desire to feel secure and in control of the situation, often by any means available. You may not agree with me here, and that's fine. We have also discussed other bullying-type incidents he's witnessed (between kids as well as between adults) in the same way, although I have not labelled any of them 'bullying'. My son knows he is small, but he knows that his smallness is not the cause of the bullying he experiences, just as another kid's sexual orientation is not the cause of him being bullied: to think that way is to invite self-hatred, and then suicide can become a real risk. But he also understands that the other kid is not the cause, either. If my son thinks he has to actively avoid every kid who might decide to pick him up, hold him down or throw him around 'for a laugh', then his potential will be limited by fear. If he sees every incident as a vicious and unprovoked attack by a 'bully', then he will learn to see himself as a 'victim', and process his feelings of humiliation and fear by directing them outwards in search of someone to blame. But if he recognises humiliation and fear as natural reactions that everyone experiences, then he can consciously choose to avoid, absorb or otherwise respond to the humiliation without positioning himself as a 'victim' or the other kid as a 'bully'. From my position as a protective parent, and from the point of view of the teachers who look out for him and actively try to 'protect' him, he still gets 'bullied', sometimes to the point of tears. But if you talk to him about it, he doesn't see it that way. These incidents are isolated moments that appear to have no lasting impact on his 'sense of self'. He doesn't take it personally, and has forgotten about it within moments. He is often genuinely surprised that any of us think it warrants discussion after the fact. So no, I'm not forcing him to be a martyr or a counsellor. I would not dream of limiting his choices in these situations any more than they already are in his mind. My aim is to teach him that there are more choices in every situation, not less. Thanks for the discussion. I have learnt so much.
  4. I'm not talking about conscious fear - the kind of fear you might actually admit to - such as in extreme or life-or-death situations. I'm talking about subconscious fear hidden by structures. When we have internalised the structures of behaviour that our job requires, for instance, we would automatically never choose to do anything that may risk our job, thereby ensuring we never have to consciously fear for our job. This is how we 'eradicate' fear. We have constructed all these eternal, definitive but essentially abstract concepts of family, society, nation, religion, laws, expectations, language, labels, meanings, etc that give our world a sense of stability and safety it wouldn't otherwise have. As long as everyone around us adheres to these structures and expectations, we believe that we have no need to fear. It's only when we recognise all these structures for the illusions they are that we are confronted with the true fragility of our existence: we recognise that we are vulnerable creatures that must rely on the delicate balance and cooperation of the entire universe in order to simply live out our brief existence, let alone achieve anything. Then we can start to understand the subconscious fear that motivates us to build and insist on the 'actuality' of these structures, as well as the unlimited potentiality that is available to us when we have the courage to see beyond them. But again, this my worldview, and I don't expect you to agree. As for the risk of becoming the bully - I have never seen that happen. It might, I have never seen it.. Most bullies I have encountered either had previously been bullied or were currently victims of bullying or oppression in a different environment (at home, previous school, bus, street, etc). Others were taught 'survival' strategies (ie. gaining the upper hand) by a parent, older sibling or 'mentor' who had been a victim of bullying, out of concern for their safety, or taught to fear or feel threatened by a certain type of person, attitude or behaviour, and to take steps to counter, control or eliminate that threat. Bullying starts with fear - it doesn't just happen because someone suddenly decides to be mean. I agree that bullying can be horrible but I have to tell you a slap up side the head is no longer bullying, it is assault, a physical attack on another (small, sure but in a school situation or schools sanctioned activities - not acceptable). And that's what I would have my lawyer tell the principal and the parents of the bully when we met and that, if it ever happens again (if they look at my kid sideways) - all legal hell will break loose. I am aware of that - I was citing the example from Matthew 5 of an action that is intended to insult or provoke without physical harm. Let's not get the lawyers involved just yet. Sorry, but the kid has nothing to understand in the moment when s/he is slapped (and will they finally feel bullied when they get a kick to the kidneys, a fist to the nose, a push down the stairs, a full out beating on the streets?). I simply disagree: one can understand why another is a bully and feel compassion - but how long does this understanding and compassion have to last if they fear going to school or they are humiliated at all or could be physically harmed or driven to suicide - because sometimes all the understanding and compassion in the world won't stop someone? Where is the compassion that is driven to protect the one being bullied in this scenario? The fight might quickly go out of some bullies but not all bullies. Am I supposed to be afraid? Am I supposed to think that what I've been teaching my children may eventually get the snot beaten out of them or leave them at the mercy of bullies, unless I also teach them when it's 'justified' to either strike back or seek protection? My children are well aware these options are available - I don't need to tell them that. Fight or flight is an instinctual response. They've even taken the option at times - and copped a detention or two from school, but no reprimand from me in those situations. I'm not insisting they choose compassion over fighting back - I'm only making them aware of the bigger picture, so they understand they have a choice to seek an interaction without fear, violence, hatred or oppression on either side. This is about awareness. It's less about the action they choose than the choices they have available. By the way, what leads you to believe that there would be a situation where all the understanding and compassion in the world won't stop someone from causing harm? Compassion is also about stopping any or further harm to others (who also deserve compassion) and then addressing, with understanding, why the bully bullied. But, sometimes, just like the mother protecting the kid from touching the hot oven, you just have to say (or shout), "No!"  What you describe here is addressing fears first and compassion second. Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest about what it is. None of this is simple but I lean to the innocent first. You talk about these situations as if you are viewing them objectively. From your position as a teacher, or as the one bullied, I understand that you did what you believed was most effective and most compassionate within what was required of and available to you in the situation as you saw it. And you are confident that the vast majority of human beings (including myself) would probably 'justify' your actions and would feel 'justified' in the same actions in those and similar situations. But that doesn't make it an objective view. There is frequently more to each situation than we choose to be aware of in the moment. The decisions we make to block that awareness are often so ingrained that they occur in our subconscious - like driving a car. They make it easier to choose instantly from the unlimited potentiality present in each moment by limiting our awareness of that potentiality. We position ourselves as teacher, as witnessing adult, responsible for the children involved as well as onlookers, answerable to parents, conscious of our limited capabilities in the moment. We can't afford to be as compassionate towards the bully as to the bullied, we don't have time to consider how they got to this point in their life, because we are obliged by our position in that moment to determine (judge) and then prioritise the 'innocent'. We seek to prevent pain, humiliation and loss (ie. to love) hierarchically because our position in time, space, society, etc prevents us from loving unconditionally. But I am not in that moment now, and I was never in that moment. It means that I'm in no position to 'judge' the actions or decisions of the individuals who were in that moment. The moment is in the past, and nothing I do or say now will ever change that moment. But it also means that I am free to view the situation without obligation: while everyone is driven by their position to protect the one being bullied, I am at liberty to feel compassion for the bully in my experience of interacting with the situation as described at this moment. That doesn't mean I have no compassion for the one being bullied. In my position as a parent, as someone who works in a school, who has experienced bullying, etc - I completely understand and recognise the need to protect the 'innocent', to put a stop to the violence, and to prioritise compassion for the one being bullied. I have never said that the one being bullied should have done anything differently, or that you or anyone else in these situations should have done anything differently either. Neither am I denying the one bullied any compassion at all. They have plenty of compassion from you and others, both in that moment and in this one - and all of it fully deserved. But I believe I am called to love unconditionally, to be aware of where there is a lack of compassion, and to be 'God' in that moment - to express God's love wherever love is lacking. If this expression of love occurs in a different spacetime, I don't believe that lessens its significance to 'God' as such. If it is not in keeping with what I am expected (by you or anyone else) to do or say given my position in a given moment, then I will wear whatever consequences that may bring. But I won't be afraid to love the unloved. Here is what interests me in this moment: given that the compassion I might express towards the position of 'bully' in my present interaction with a situation you experienced in the past cannot actually affect the situation or the past itself, do you believe it has an impact on your present interaction (or anyone else's present interaction, for that matter) with the same situation?
  5. I understand that your position as a teacher made you fearful of the repercussions should you choose not to step in, and I believe it is still possible to be compassionate while restraining or otherwise preventing damage (especially as a teacher, where your options for 'handling' a student are limited anyway). You were protecting your interests - your position as a teacher requires you to protect the student being bullied as a priority, and ensure that the bullying stops without obvious harm to either student. You are motivated by fear, not necessarily for yourself but for your job: which includes your obligation to your students' future, parent expectations, the school, etc - this is perfectly understandable in the immediate circumstances. I would never expect a teacher who felt physically capable of stopping a fight to remain passive in this situation, even if they wanted to. But the 'fight' only starts when someone retaliates, and continues only as long as either side feels 'wronged' and capable of 'righting' it. In retaliating, sometimes you get lucky applying a force that matches the one against you, and you reach a point of mutual respect. Often you fail to match the force, so the bullying continues, and your feelings of humiliation, powerlessness and fear escalate. Sometimes you tip the scales too far and become the 'bully'. It takes courage to 'stand up' to a bully. I think retaliation can be a risky option, and it's not the only one available. Bullying always starts small, so it's important to nip it in the bud. If the kid being bullied is offended or insulted by a slap to the right cheek, for instance - if he feels humiliated or oppressed by it, then he reacts with humiliation or fear, which further attracts the bully by offering him an opportunity to gain power and control he probably fails to get elsewhere. But if the kid being 'bullied' understands the reasons behind the slap - the powerlessness, fear or lack of control felt by the bully - and has cause to feel compassion towards their behaviour rather than humiliation or fear, then he has no need to react to the attack, and therefore doesn't feel bullied. He can even offer the other cheek - not out of fear, but out of compassion - confident that the pain, humiliation or loss is tolerable, and that he gives it freely. The fight then quickly goes out of the bully - he may laugh or try to pretend he got the upper hand, or even try to escalate it himself - but he'll know he didn't really get what he thought he wanted. Compassion is not about giving someone what they want or what they ask for, but about understanding and addressing what they need - what their request or demand really means to them, despite how they communicate it.
  6. I believe a natural motivation as a human being is not to hurt or exclude people, but to protect our own interests - as Thormas says, our self centredness. We attack others when we sense a threat to our interests, to the 'solid foundations' of our world, and we will use whatever we have at our disposal in order to regain control of our situation. Religion was the 'power' that the Pharisees wielded, and they misused it in the same way that the popes of Luther's time (and many others) misused it: to protect their own interests and remove any threats to their sense of control (over themselves as well as others). It's what it seems Trump has been doing with his power, almost on a daily basis. It's what we would expected most (but not all) people to do with the power or ability they have - especially if, for instance, someone starts shooting nearby...
  7. Thormas Please try not to take my comments about general human tendencies and behaviour personally - they are in no way directed towards you. We want to believe the best of humanity and of society, including their laws and procedures. When you speak of society and humanity in general, I believe you speak of the best of us - the ideal. Those who don't live up to this ideal are anomalies - 'they' are individuals whose thoughts, words and actions temporarily position them apart from humanity as an idealistic whole. They are redeemable (as are we all), but have strayed nonetheless. You believe yourself to be a member of this idealistic whole, and those thoughts, words and actions that might lead you astray are frequent diversions in an otherwise virtuous life. Please don't read judgement into any of these descriptions, either. I once saw the world as you did, and the fact that I no longer do is a change that I would not necessarily claim to be an improvement, either. I believe you to have a clear understanding of reality: of the world as a whole, of humanity and of your own capabilities. When I speak of society and humanity in general, though, I speak of our weaknesses and fears - our mob mentality, instinctive tendencies, interpretation of laws and procedures that make it easy, justifiable and even necessary to withhold the love we are capable of giving. I believe that being fully aware of these fearful tendencies in ourselves as well as in others is a key to compassion and unconditional love. I include myself in this view of humanity, because I want to be honest about how far I am and can go from unconditional love in each of my thoughts, words and actions. Those actions that strive to be 'Christ-like' I see as individually so. They stand apart from both my sense of 'self' and of 'humanity' because I understand them to be frequent acts of courage in an otherwise fearful life. That I believe my worldview to be more accurate is only a symptom of my worldview. That I see the seeds of pain, humiliation and loss in almost every thought, word and action is no reflection on you, nor is it a criticism of 'humanity' as such. It is what it is. When you say that 'bullying must be stopped', for instance, I understand that you personally would not advocate the many and varied methods of 'stopping' that bullying that often cause harm to the so-called 'bully'. What I believe you mean is always the most 'ideal' way of preventing any further harm, and I'm sorry that I haven't made that understanding perfectly clear. What I'm reacting to, therefore, is not my sense of your personal values, but the words 'bullying must be stopped', and what that can and often does mean, in my worldview, to the fearful, mob-like majority. When I mean you personally, I say 'you'. When I mean my view of humanity in general (which is rather less idealistic than your own), I say 'we'. I'm sorry that this has not been clearer. FWIW, my personal reaction to my child being bullied (and it has occurred many times) is to teach my child to understand various reasons for the bullying behaviour, including that child's sense of self-worth, their own past experiences of bullying and subsequently learned methods of coping and protecting themselves from harm, which can then harm others. My child is then able to communicate from a place of awareness and compassion, instead of as a victim. It's been surprisingly effective from the age of seven to fifteen so far...
  8. Thanks for your comment, FireDragon. I'm making a connection that I'm pretty confident Hart would never make himself, let alone other Orthodox Christians. Like Thormas, his focus is on God as pure actuality, backed up by rationalistic argument by Aristotle and Aquinas. Regardless of whether or not the source of his 'knowledge' is grace, he nevertheless presents it as reason. It's essentially a 'chicken or the egg' argument - I'm just exploring the 'egg' side of the argument, because I think it has merit in the light of quantum theory and consciousness studies. Incidentally, would you say that the nature of pure and absolute potentiality is 'unknowable'?
  9. How do you propose we actively refuse to accept it? By 'justifiably' condoning or causing pain and suffering to those who would cause pain and suffering? Is that Loving no matter the consequences? I'm not saying there is an easy answer, or that we should stand by and allow bullying, racism, war, rape or murder to happen at all. But individually we need to recognise that our lack of love in return - whether in condemning the person(s) directly or indirectly with our thoughts, words or actions, or in condoning or demanding pain, humiliation or loss inflicted on them as 'justice' - is not the way to God. Despite what seems to be the case short term, on a long term basis we will not stop bullying with bullying, war with war or murder with murder...only with Love no matter the consequences. Yes, there will be pain, humiliation and loss, and much will seem undeserved - but there will be anyway, and seeking to avoid it ourselves (believing it to be undeserved) invariably inflicts it on others, who also seek to avoid it and in doing so inflict it on others, etc... The difference is that we can become aware of when this occurs and choose individually to 'accept' rather than deflect the pain, humiliation and loss that comes our way - neither condoning nor contributing to it in any way, justified or otherwise. And we can show others the same path.
  10. I agree, and didn't say it was a correct interpretation. I only wanted to address the assumption that I intended to take random snippets out of context. I agree that the Torah should be understood as essentially correct but not literally so, and this illustrates the point that whatever words are used (in verbal and written accounts of Moses' revelations or Jesus' teachings or even in human 'judgement') can only point to a subjective and limited experience of the truth - they cannot definitively state it. However, I don't believe Jesus was only arguing against the literal interpretation - or that his examples were as 'absurd' as you might think. I recognise that from a broader, societal perspective, Jesus' call to 'turn the other cheek', for example, to love those who persecute you, might seem 'absurd'. But at the level of personal interaction with the world, the words also point to individual acceptance of suffering as a part of life, rather than the active avoidance and retaliation that assumes: 'I don't deserve to suffer - others do'. Jesus then follows through on this call by willingly accepting pain, humiliation and death himself beyond what anyone would deserve: suffering inflicted by others without cause. In my opinion, this call is also reflected throughout the Old Testament, from the stories of Cain and Joseph to Job and Ecclesiastes, as well as in Buddhist teachings and more.
  11. Fair enough, but that was not my intention. I agree these were brief examples, but I believe my interpretation reflects their original context, and I wouldn't suggest that context be ignored. Neither did I intend to make any 'sweeping conclusions' myself - I only queried that this expectation might not be as 'clear' as one might assume. It was an invitation to demonstrate this clarity, and to weigh in on the original question. You have done neither, but that's your choice.
  12. Hi Burl I'm not sure where this is so 'clearly' laid out as an expectation of mankind. I would have thought "Judge not, that Ye not be judged" and "turn the other cheek" suggested an expectation to refrain from judgement or any approximation of justice? I am expected to make adjustments to my own way of being, to my future actions, in relation to the covenant, and to interact with others in recognition of their potential to do the same - but in my opinion judgement is a form of measurement that invites one to interact with the decision (conclusion based on past actions) instead of the potentiality. Jesus speaks against human judgement of individuals (which both leads to, and seeks avoidance of, suffering), and instead speaks to a final judgement which is God's. The original question was whether the term judgement was to be understood as 'a conclusion or decision' (the standard English definition) or alternatively as 'a moment of chaos, presenting opportunity and danger' (which I understood to be more warning than judgement).
  13. I don't deny this, and I'm not dismissing their value. I just don't think we should confine ourselves to these sources. In appreciating the diversity of the universe, we can welcome the subjective experiences of the anomalous and the marginalised as indicative of the potentiality that exists beyond our current understanding. This how we have grown to accept the diversity of gender identity, for example. Humility is a strange word - it suggests an acceptance of limitation. I am aware that I cannot definitively 'know' potentiality in terms of subjective experience, such is its infinitude. That would be like striving to 'know' Pi in terms of its full digital expression - any articulation of it would either be an abstraction or an approximation at best. Yet we 'know' that a number exists which, for all intents and purposes, is 'infinitely diverse' in its expression. At any moment we can choose to accept the symbol, confine or expand it to x decimal places or strive to actualise the absolute potentiality of its unique expression, confident that it can occur even if we 'know' that no full actuality will occur in time or space. In all but the last option, there is danger in losing sight of the infinity of its full expression, in settling for or believing the chosen approximation as actual. That the frontiers of science and mathematics refuse to settle for anything less than this last option is an admirable quest, in my opinion. That both scientific and religious thinkers very often choose to settle within certain apparent limitations is unfortunate.
  14. I understand that the Word of God is always redemptive, but the word 'judgement' as written in both the Old and New Testament seems to always follow the action rather than preempting choice as in your examples, and also suggests a conclusion or decision in its context. I don't think I'm reading that into the text, and I'd be interested in hearing a non-catholic point of view on the use of 'judgement' in scripture, for clarity. I can see, however, how 'judgement' implied by Catholic tradition and read into the text can be interpreted in the way you describe. But that discourse can also be interpreted by fundamentalists, atheists and anyone who has not read Baum, in terms of the commonly held understanding of 'judgement' outside of this 'loving' interpretation. Because of this, I will continue to distinguish 'warning' from 'judgement' according to commonly held understanding of the terms rather than Baum's interpretation of Catholic discourse. I sincerely hope you don't mind.
  15. I like this. I believe that love is the actualising of potentiality, insofaras we are aware of that potentiality. For you that potentiality appears to be limited to Human, so that (eventually) divinity is dwelling in humanity, whereas for me it is unlimited: 'humanity' as a limitation falls away and we become all, divinity, love. I hope I'm following your understanding of these terms, but I get the feeling this is not quite what you mean.
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service