That's even more fantastic! A sort of 'hair of the dog' summation...back to square one sentiment. I'd like to sum up my feelings on the whole issue if I could with a line from my favorite thinker of all time. "The mountain tops are always warmer than the valley, even in the winter. The thinker will know what this means." -Friedrich Nietzsche
I like the sentiment of the quote. However it is not meteorologically correct. Not a protest neo, a statement of fact.
I don't envy you but I am close in Seattle. Canada's west coast maritime climate is sublime by comparison to the continental climate.
Yes it is. However they have to endure endless grey days, rain, and humidity that is extremely burdensome to older people and those with joint problems/arthritis. I'm in southeastern Ontario, a few hours above New York. Our weather's fair but VERY unpredictable. Almost two months ago we had a weekend that was stunning, sunny and 27 degrees. Last Monday it was 3 degrees with rain and snow.
The word energy could be considered the secular form of the word spirit. We are spirit reaching toward spirit in all things. All of this spiritual reaching, energetic exchange, manifests as the many faces of life.
I would think that energy would be a plural form of referring to spirit. As there is only one single mass of energy that is everything, it would encompass all spirit of everything, or contains all the individual spirits of everything. Although it does have a similar meaning without the religious connotation to it
Creation is a law without opposite. The whole defines the part, but the part does not define the whole. This is the same example of the root word encompassing the embodied sensation and thus providing the basis for subsequent conjugation. Individuality is meaningless in absence of it's relationship to the whole. The ego on the other hand defines itself by virtue of difference.
Creation isn't a law though. It's an objective process. Or as you said yesterday, a cyclical state of becoming. I don't think it's a law, a neccesity. The whole defines the part, but the part does not define the whole. This however is very true Have you ever read 'The book on the Taboo against knowing who you are' by Alan Watts?
I lol'd. Don't let your dedication skew your vision. What I meant is that you have something to say even when nothing needs to be said, apparently for the intention of producing "clarity". Your way of expounding upon everything speaks to me of an inner need to "not support illusions"; ergo, you do it for you and not for others. Based on this passage, my sense is that you'd be exceptionally surprised at how malleable something like "truth" really is.
By law I mean extant process. I do not recall specifically, I may have. I kind of fell off the reading circuit, books can lead you to a door but you have to go through it.
Dedication to what. The only thing I ever invest myself in is truth and love, which in my opinion are more or less one in the same. If you've believed me to dedicate myself to something as truthful as love, or as loving as truth, then my vision need not be questioned. One doesn't seek love or truth with their vision. Truth is an individual thing. What is true to you may not be true to me.
Our needs are the same. I understand your sentiment. It seems that I will not just let something lie. The status quo is hard calcified, I do attempt to be disruptive to the extent of keeping new associations flowing. I have an unqualified call for enlightenment. Dismember habitual thought patterns and grow new ones. No one puts new wine in old skins or the skin will split and both the wine and the skin are ruined.
This process also helps to keep the conversation going and exciting. At least to those who may not be personally attached to a cause
Illuminations never come from the crowned. Illuminating realisition #1: You are the only light there is, for yourself my friend.
So you don't think that there's something else outside of you that casts rays from a metaphysical place for those who are willing to seek?