Re, grady's remark on Truth must be narrow or be false

[Guest guest]

I do read your replies, but right now I am recieving

50 or more e's a day and it is hard to sift. If you

reply to my headings I will for sure notice you are

talking to me, otherwise usually I can't read all of

it.

 

Anyway what I was saying is that if something is red,

it isn't blue or green or black.

 

If 2 plus 2 equals four then it doesn't equal 1, 2, 3,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

 

All truth is narrow.

 

The fact that is is true means that it negates all

other opposition this in turn makes something narrow.

And in order to remove the narrowness of truth is to

say that it's ok to run red lights and to not stop at

stop signs. But the saying that red is red and green

is green is still intact, truth is absolute, I am

absolutely sure.

 

It has to be.

 

OR truth doesn't exist at all in any form

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

, grady little <gradyll>

wrote:

 

Anyway what I was saying is that if something is red,

it isn't blue or green or black.

 

 

))) The lover's food is the love of the bread;

no bread need be at hand:

no one who is sincere in his love is a slave to existence.

Lovers have nothing to do with with with existence;

lovers have the interest without the capital.

Without wings they fly around the world;

without hands they carry the polo ball off the field.

That dervish who caught the scent of Reality

used to weave basket even though his hand had been cut off.

Lovers have pitched their tents in nonexistence:

they are of one quality and one essence, as nonexistence is.

 

~Rumi

 

 

If 2 plus 2 equals four then it doesn't equal 1, 2, 3,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

 

 

))) 0

 

The Circle Around the Zero

 

A lover doesn't figure the odds.

 

He figures he came clean from God

as a gift without a reason,

so he gives without cause or calculation or limit.

 

A conventionally religious person

behaves a certain way to achieve salvation.

 

A lover gambles everything,

the self, the circle around the zero!

He or she cuts and throws it all away.

 

This is beyond any religion.

 

Lovers do not require from God any proof,

or any text, nor do they knock on a door

to make sure this is the right street.

 

They run,

and they run.

 

~Rumi by Coleman Barks

"Feeling the Shoulder of the Lion"

 

 

 

 

All truth is narrow.

 

The fact that it is true means that it negates all

other opposition this in turn makes something narrow.

And in order to remove the narrowness of truth is to

say that it's ok to run red lights and to not stop at

stop signs. But the saying that red is red and green

is green is still intact, truth is absolute, I am

absolutely sure.

 

 

 

))) We think that there is something hiding our

reality and that it must be destroyed before the

reality is gained. It is ridiculous. A day will dawn

when you will yourself laugh at your past efforts.

That which will be on the day you laugh is also

here and now.

 

~Sri Ramana Maharshi

 

 

 

It has to be.

 

OR truth doesn't exist at all in any form

 

 

 

))) To come to real understanding one ought not disparage the senses.

The senses (and their apparent objects) are not obstacles to

enlightenment; actually, they are the same as enlightenment, if one

understands them only as such.

 

~Seng T'san (Chinese patriarch)

 

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

Mazie

[Guest guest]

mazie, I quess I am not sure what exactly your saying

with these quotes...

 

 

--- "mazie_l <sraddha54"

<sraddha54 wrote:

> , grady little

> <gradyll>

> wrote:

>

> Anyway what I was saying is that if something is

> red,

> it isn't blue or green or black.

>

>

> ))) The lover's food is the love of the bread;

> no bread need be at hand:

> no one who is sincere in his love is a slave to

> existence.

> Lovers have nothing to do with with with existence;

> lovers have the interest without the capital.

> Without wings they fly around the world;

> without hands they carry the polo ball off the

> field.

> That dervish who caught the scent of Reality

> used to weave basket even though his hand had been

> cut off.

> Lovers have pitched their tents in nonexistence:

> they are of one quality and one essence, as

> nonexistence is.

>

> ~Rumi

>

>

> If 2 plus 2 equals four then it doesn't equal 1, 2,

> 3,

> 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

>

>

> ))) 0

>

> The Circle Around the Zero

>

> A lover doesn't figure the odds.

>

> He figures he came clean from God

> as a gift without a reason,

> so he gives without cause or calculation or limit.

>

> A conventionally religious person

> behaves a certain way to achieve salvation.

>

> A lover gambles everything,

> the self, the circle around the zero!

> He or she cuts and throws it all away.

>

> This is beyond any religion.

>

> Lovers do not require from God any proof,

> or any text, nor do they knock on a door

> to make sure this is the right street.

>

> They run,

> and they run.

>

> ~Rumi by Coleman Barks

> "Feeling the Shoulder of the Lion"

>

>

>

>

> All truth is narrow.

>

> The fact that it is true means that it negates all

> other opposition this in turn makes something

> narrow.

> And in order to remove the narrowness of truth is to

> say that it's ok to run red lights and to not stop

> at

> stop signs. But the saying that red is red and green

> is green is still intact, truth is absolute, I am

> absolutely sure.

>

>

>

> ))) We think that there is something hiding our

> reality and that it must be destroyed before the

> reality is gained. It is ridiculous. A day will dawn

> when you will yourself laugh at your past efforts.

> That which will be on the day you laugh is also

> here and now.

>

> ~Sri Ramana Maharshi

>

>

>

> It has to be.

>

> OR truth doesn't exist at all in any form

>

>

>

> ))) To come to real understanding one ought not

> disparage the senses.

> The senses (and their apparent objects) are not

> obstacles to

> enlightenment; actually, they are the same as

> enlightenment, if one

> understands them only as such.

>

> ~Seng T'san (Chinese patriarch)

>

>

>

> LoveAlways,

>

> Mazie

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

, grady little <gradyll>

wrote:

>Anyway what I was saying is that if something is red,

it isn't blue or green or black.

 

If 2 plus 2 equals four then it doesn't equal 1, 2, 3,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

 

==================================================================

 

Hi Grady,

I'm happy you are not a troll...

 

If you use a computer, and you do, then you have a printer as well.

Do you print color pictures?

If so then you know that there are many shades and hue of red, some

reds are slanted toward the yellow, some reds are slanted toward the

blue, some reds have various amounts of black, and other reds have

various amounts of white. Beyond that all of those reds may have

green in them as well.

 

Will the real "red" please make itself known?

 

Now let us consider 2 plus 2 equals 4.

On the face of it that appears true, however.....

let us add 2 ounces of cotton + 2 ounces of alcohol.

How many ounces of the mixture do we get?

 

Sorry, wrong answer. One doesn't get 4 ounces of cotton and alcohol.

Surprise. Certainly not by volume, not even by weight.

 

Let's try again.

2 male cocker spanials + 2 female beagles may produce 10 (more or

less) offspring and they won't look the same.

 

Finding "absolute truth" is not as easy as it looks.

 

Now let's deal with my assertion.

When one has met God, what does one need a book for, especially a

book filled with cultural shifts, linguistic meaning shifts over

time, mistranslations, and theological confusion resulting from a

failure to recognize the antecedents of the "revealer"?

 

If it is so simple, why are there so many denominations and sects

(over 1700 at last count) each proclaiming that they are the correct

interpretors of "divine revelation"?

 

If it is so clear, why, so often, is the attitude throughout history,

that if you don't believe as I say, either I will kill you because it

is better for your soul that you die than persist in your error, or

you will spend eternity in hell because of your refusal to

accept "my" truth.

 

And these "views" are held by "people of the book". Join my box and

be saved!

 

Sorry God isn't in a box. Never was, never will be.

 

John L.

[Guest guest]

Red is a primary color, meaning that each of the

colors you mention, are mixtures of other shades with

the true color of red.

 

Why would most conventional printers only need three

colors,

 

because althought a printer can't perfectly blend, It

does a pretty good job of blending any mixture of

three colors to come up with hundreds of colors, if

the printer could mix better it would have better

selection of colors,

 

but still red is a primary color, meaning you cannot

mix any other primary colors together to create red,

you either have red or you don't.

 

an absolute.

 

this is true red, ask anyone.

 

 

to ansure your question on math

 

2+2=4

 

this is a formula that is correct.

 

Now you added

 

2+ 2a does not equal 4

 

your right

 

But my statement was

 

2+2 always equals 4

 

And this is obvious.

 

 

 

When is red

 

Yellow?

 

 

My other question is can you make 2 Tons of feathers

and 2 Tons of Lead equals four tons?

 

Yes!

 

the only reason is

 

because

 

2+2 always equals 4

 

And this is why truth is always narrow or it is false

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- "John Logan <johnrloganis"

<johnrloganis wrote:

> , grady little

> <gradyll>

> wrote:

> >Anyway what I was saying is that if something is

> red,

> it isn't blue or green or black.

>

> If 2 plus 2 equals four then it doesn't equal 1, 2,

> 3,

> 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

>

>

==================================================================

>

> Hi Grady,

> I'm happy you are not a troll...

>

> If you use a computer, and you do, then you have a

> printer as well.

> Do you print color pictures?

> If so then you know that there are many shades and

> hue of red, some

> reds are slanted toward the yellow, some reds are

> slanted toward the

> blue, some reds have various amounts of black, and

> other reds have

> various amounts of white. Beyond that all of those

> reds may have

> green in them as well.

>

> Will the real "red" please make itself known?

>

> Now let us consider 2 plus 2 equals 4.

> On the face of it that appears true, however.....

> let us add 2 ounces of cotton + 2 ounces of

> alcohol.

> How many ounces of the mixture do we get?

>

> Sorry, wrong answer. One doesn't get 4 ounces of

> cotton and alcohol.

> Surprise. Certainly not by volume, not even by

> weight.

>

> Let's try again.

> 2 male cocker spanials + 2 female beagles may

> produce 10 (more or

> less) offspring and they won't look the same.

>

> Finding "absolute truth" is not as easy as it looks.

>

> Now let's deal with my assertion.

> When one has met God, what does one need a book for,

> especially a

> book filled with cultural shifts, linguistic meaning

> shifts over

> time, mistranslations, and theological confusion

> resulting from a

> failure to recognize the antecedents of the

> "revealer"?

>

> If it is so simple, why are there so many

> denominations and sects

> (over 1700 at last count) each proclaiming that they

> are the correct

> interpretors of "divine revelation"?

>

> If it is so clear, why, so often, is the attitude

> throughout history,

> that if you don't believe as I say, either I will

> kill you because it

> is better for your soul that you die than persist in

> your error, or

> you will spend eternity in hell because of your

> refusal to

> accept "my" truth.

>

> And these "views" are held by "people of the book".

> Join my box and

> be saved!

>

> Sorry God isn't in a box. Never was, never will be.

>

> John L.

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Sorry,

you haven't defined "true red".

Consider the difference between an opaque (reflective) red and a

translucent red. Which one is the true red? (They are NOT equivalent.)

Which one is the true red in a prismatic spectrum (like a rainbow)?

(There are hundreds of frequency differentials, each of which can be

called "red"). So which one is the "primary red"?

Which tint? Which hue? Ask an artist or an interior decorator to tell

you which one is the "true" red.

 

Indeed which "primary" color system?

Red-Yellow-Blue - or Red-Yellow-Green?

 

When is "redyellow"? When Humpty-Dumpty says it is? Consider the

light spectrum, where is the line to be drawn between the frequencies

which are defined as red, and which yellow. It is where the observer

says it is! Look at the color portion of the electromagnetic spectrum

and you tell me.

 

"Red" and "Yellow" are names we give to something for communication

purposes and they only mean what we take them to mean. They are not

the nature of the reality itself.

 

Consider the colors "blue" and "green". What is the difference? How

is one to tell the difference between them? In Spanish the

corresponding words are "azul" and "verde". Are these words exact

equivalents? I thought so until I met an anthropologist who studied a

tribe of natives in Baja Californio who used the word "verde" for the

color of the sky and the word "azul" for the color of grass. It turns

out that they couldn't really tell the difference and they were

guessing a bit. With deeper study he realized that all grass is not

green, especially in a desert setting where the sun affects the color

of everything, and not all grasses are the same color though

conventionally we see all grasses the same color, the natives

actually made the distinction between grasses and likewise the "blue"

of the sky isn't the same depending on what time of day it is and

what the weather is.

 

Now, 2 + 2 = 4 in an arithmetic of decimal numbers (Base 10).

But decimal is not the only number system.

In a ternary number system (Base 3) 2 + 2 = 1 !

In a quartenary number system (Base 4) 2 + 2 = 0 !

 

If the measure of things is ONLY weight 2 + 2 = 4;

but things can also be measured by volume, now....

your 2 tons of feather + 2 tons of lead do not occupy the same volume

as 4 tons of feathers or 4 tons of lead.

 

2 + 2 = 4 only in the mathematical abstract; it does not equal 4 in

the real world, only conventionally. There is hardly anything pure

enough to actually get exactly 2 of anything, much less 2 more of

anything. In the quantum world there is no matter at all, only a kind

of dynamic energy plus a lot of space. The movement of the elements

involved make observation a statistical action, the observer actually

affects the observation.

 

We don't really live in a Newtonian world where objects are truly

solid; we really live in a Dynamic world where there is only energy

and space. Our bodies are not solid at all, and are constantly

changing. Likewise everything we consider material substance is only

conventionally substantial. There is more space in your body than the

actual basis (atomically and sub-atomically speaking) of the atoms

which make it up. It can be said on that basis alone that the world

as it appears is an illusion, a dream as it were.

 

Shifting the discussion a bit.

Language is not terribly reliable in defining things in a simplistic

way. That is why the scientist is irritating to the person who tries

to reduce everything in absolute terms to suit a theological agendum.

The scientist wants things clearly defined, and absolutes may be

harder to come by than the agendum will allow.

 

Religious language has all kinds of problems. Christianity is highly

dependent on interpretation of ancient languages, no longer actually

spoken or used, and the translations have been affected by the

historical shifts in the meaning of the words used, in both the

original and in the language of translation. Consider the shift in

English from the 12th century to the present, indeed, consider the

shift in the English language from the 17th century to the present.

Some words in the King James English have so changed their meanings

that they now mean their opposite, which has caused some confusion in

the minds of readers of the more modern translations.

 

Now consider the Hebrew of the Old Testament (The Tanakh in Judaism).

Some parts of it originated in 2500 BC or earlier and resided in an

oral tradition for centuries until it was written down, often 1000

years later. Some parts were written down in 1800 BC and other parts

were written down as late as 400 BC. That's over 1400 years for

language meanings shifts to have taken place in the source language

alone. In addition that same Hebrew had virtually no abstract nouns

at all, and the language itself is highly verbal and dynamic. Many of

its concepts could only be expressed in symbol, analogy and metaphor.

(Example, "authority" or "favoritism" expressed as being "seated on

the right hand of the ruler". So to "be seated on the right hand of

God" actually indicates that the one so seated has been given divine

authority or is highly favored, depending on context.

 

Going further, one sees the Hebrew being translated into Greek and

from the Greek into Latin and from the Greek and Latin into English.

My, my we have problems in understanding what was actually meant --

and theologies are built and violently defended based on such

translation work.

 

In addition, one of the problems with a discussion is whether or not

one has clearly stated the premises under discussion, with both

parties agreeing to them. You have posited a premise in your original

post and then assumed agreement, going on to draw conclusions based

on your premises. However the premises involved, as you expressed

them, do not lead to correct conclusions because the premises are

incorrect. The primary incorrect premise is that you assumed that

your premises were accepted. And they is no agreement here. There are

other viewpoints as I have demonstrated.

 

Things are not as simple as they seem.

 

This is long enough, I'll stop here for now,

John L.

 

 

, grady little <gradyll>

wrote:

> Red is a primary color, meaning that each of the

> colors you mention, are mixtures of other shades with

> the true color of red.

>

> Why would most conventional printers only need three

> colors,

>

> because althought a printer can't perfectly blend, It

> does a pretty good job of blending any mixture of

> three colors to come up with hundreds of colors, if

> the printer could mix better it would have better

> selection of colors,

>

> but still red is a primary color, meaning you cannot

> mix any other primary colors together to create red,

> you either have red or you don't.

>

> an absolute.

>

> this is true red, ask anyone.

>

>

> to ansure your question on math

>

> 2+2=4

>

> this is a formula that is correct.

>

> Now you added

>

> 2+ 2a does not equal 4

>

> your right

>

> But my statement was

>

> 2+2 always equals 4

>

> And this is obvious.

>

>

>

> When is red

>

> Yellow?

>

>

> My other question is can you make 2 Tons of feathers

> and 2 Tons of Lead equals four tons?

>

> Yes!

>

> the only reason is

>

> because

>

> 2+2 always equals 4

>

> And this is why truth is always narrow or it is false

[Guest guest]

magenta

 

 

number 11

 

HP C4837A

 

is that clear enough

 

call HP printer companies near you

 

ask for magenta they will tell you, yes this is one of

three primary colors

 

red is red

 

I am sorry too

 

things are simpler than you try to make them

 

take it easy bro,

 

RElax

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Ah,

but I use a Lexmark Z23 and they use a different magenta with a

different formula.

Which one is the real red?

 

Come on Grady, take a basic course in the physics of light or an art

course where the fundamentals of color are taught. Or better, have a

look at a basic color wheel.

 

Your printer doesn't define "red" it only uses one of many.

And your printer doesn't define the universe of color anymore

than "simplistic unstudied theology" defines God.

 

John L.

 

, grady little <gradyll>

wrote:

> magenta

>

>

> number 11

>

> HP C4837A

>

> is that clear enough

>

> call HP printer companies near you

>

> ask for magenta they will tell you, yes this is one of

> three primary colors

>

> red is red

>

> I am sorry too

>

> things are simpler than you try to make them

>

> take it easy bro,

>

> RElax

>

>

>

>

>

> Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

> http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

good, very good,

 

a logical argument at last

 

well, you may be correct

 

But, red is red because this is the term we designated

to it,

 

to say red isn't red is just stupid.

 

formulas for red may vary as products of colors vary,

but the true red isn't in the formula but in the

color. Red isn't yellow or blue, Red is simply red.

 

 

REd is a very narrow color, but then you have magenta,

and orange-red, and burgandy, maroon but the true red

is simply red.

 

yes you are right, there are many versions and names

for red, but when you allow a prism to split up light

into it's different spectrums you will know that red

is a primary color in light. It is not any of the

other colors of the rainbow because it would not have

the ability to live isolated from the light if this

were the case, but then again this is still my

observations, and oppinions, but still in your

arguments of physics and prisms there still is no

proofs that red is anything more than basic red as

found in light, separated by prisms as such.

 

 

 

 

--- "John Logan <johnrloganis"

<johnrloganis wrote:

> Ah,

> but I use a Lexmark Z23 and they use a different

> magenta with a

> different formula.

> Which one is the real red?

>

> Come on Grady, take a basic course in the physics of

> light or an art

> course where the fundamentals of color are taught.

> Or better, have a

> look at a basic color wheel.

>

> Your printer doesn't define "red" it only uses one

> of many.

> And your printer doesn't define the universe of

> color anymore

> than "simplistic unstudied theology" defines God.

>

> John L.

>

> , grady little

> <gradyll>

> wrote:

> > magenta

> >

> >

> > number 11

> >

> > HP C4837A

> >

> > is that clear enough

> >

> > call HP printer companies near you

> >

> > ask for magenta they will tell you, yes this is

> one of

> > three primary colors

> >

> > red is red

> >

> > I am sorry too

> >

> > things are simpler than you try to make them

> >

> > take it easy bro,

> >

> > RElax

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up

> now.

> > http://mailplus.

>

>

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Grady,

In the opaque spectrum, what appears to be red, is a filtering out of

other frequencies through absorption, the eye then sees the result

and names it "red". Actually "red" is the result of a discrimination

among frequencies for what they are not. What you want to

simplitically call "red" is actually a spectrum of frequencies, on

one end moving toward the ultraviolet and on the other end moving

toward the infra-red.

 

What appears to be red is a matter of naming, not of quality. Your

desire for such simplicity and structure, is simply a way of wanting

to make your world secure -- when actually the "world" is quite

unstable and transient, everything changes. In Humpty-Dumpty's world

the words means what "I want them to mean so I can ignore the

reality".

 

The real issue is "Who are you?", "What are you?"

Until one has examined these questions for oneself, free of the

opinions of others, only then can one begin to grasp reality.

This is almost a trick question, because the answer is not obvious

though there are superficial answers. Dig deeper and deeper. When one

digs deep enough the self disappears and God appears directly. Then

the phrase "The Kingdom of God is in the midst of you" takes on a

whole new meaning. [i have given a big clue, but jumped over a lot of

steps one must take to get there.]

 

Spiritual experience cannot be acquired from the words of another,

nor can it be acquired through belief, strange as it may seen. Faith

is not built on belief, actually it is the other way around. First

there is experience, then there is contact, then there is certainly

beyond thinking and words, then there is faith -- and faith

translated into words become belief. If we begin with belief then the

experience on which it is built depends on another and is not your

own and there is no faith! [Don't react or respond, rather examina

and try to examine what you are actually experiencing and let it

grow. Examine the ideas just shared and actually test them for

yourself.]

 

Peace,

John L.