THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.angels,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,alt.paranet.metaphysics,talk.religion.newage From: nagasivaSubject: Metaphysics & Criteria for Assessing Angels Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:09:50 GMT 50030723 kaos! tying up loose ends before responding to your wonderful taxonomy revision! thanks!! nagasiva: #> yes, Terrans exist. beyond this I see no evidence, but I try to #> make allowances for a variety of beliefs. cosmological resolution #> isn't my aim, though it may be yours, which I can understand. "angelicusrex" writes: # If you believe we exist then you must presuppose that other # entities like ourselves have developed elsewhere. I need not. # Otherwise, other species, such as turtles and sharks, # which are alien to our own species, could not exist. I don't follow the logic. # Look at the plethora of forms that exist here. Some not # even based on oxygen exchange. This proves that life # can and will develop in other mediums. again, I don't follow the logic, but it does seem unlikely that life as we know it is unique in the cosmos, and inasmuch as this is your point, agreed. # It also logically follows if one form of life could develop # on this planet in a relatively short amount of time to # travel into space, so could others.... that doesn't make travelling easy or lifespans extensive. # And "proof" is not required in a taxonomy. agreed. a lattice is enough. # All you are offering is a generalized list of your own # personal views of what you consider to be communicative # "agents.".... nope, I'm trying to keep my personal views out of it. # No one has completely agreed with it yet. where inclusive it succeeds. # I recently offered my own list. yes, it was lovely. I'll respond to it tonight or tomorrow. # All these lists must necessarily reflect our relative # viewpoints. not if they are done well. # What you say is "immobile" might actually be mobile. not if they are concisely described, excluding cosmology. # What you say is non-sensed, may indeed be sensed by # something else. I'm definitely doing it human-centered. my intent is to be inclusive *to humans*. # You are using pseudo science to build a proposed # taxonomy of specific agents that almost no two humans # will ever fully agree upon. full agreement isn't my aim. I don't know why we have to go over this more than once. inclusivity is the aim. # We can't have a discourse on "angelic communications" # if no one agrees what an angel is or how they # communicate or what they communicate. sure we can, but we might mistake some terms/axioms. # Most of us here at least have some idea of what # the others think.... good, that will be a helpful basis to proceed. #> mutual myopias will use the bridge to learn about one #> another in a convivial and friendly way. # # ...Others might see it as a wall of opposition. let the chips fall where they may. # As far as I know I am the first to attempt to walk over this # bridge. wonderful. :> #> I am very welcoming of alternatives. I hope to discover even more #> inclusive alternatives to what I'm creating, and invite yours. :> # # I have offered my own revised taxonomy. Hope you enjoy it! I have so far and intend to respond. thanks! #># ...you should have studied our site #> #> what site? please elaborate as to the site to which you refer. thanks. # # This NG is a "site." awkward term-set. thanks for explaining. # You should have come here, listened to # the arguments and read the postings before making assumptions # that people would eagerly accept your "bridge." I never made that assumption. # I accept it. Even though I don't think it is a very # stable or attractive bridge. I think the bridge needs # more support. Or it will fall down. thanks for your criticism and feedback. # ...where pray tell, was your confirmation that either # dogs or toasters talked to people at all? none. none needed. the aim is inclusivity. # Why do you top your list with "imaginary agents?" 'top' doesn't imply virtue or importance. it could be rearranged. doing so might be helpful. :> # Who is imagining them? human-centered. # What is imagination? faculty internal to humans involved in the creation of images. # How can an imaginary thing be an "agent" of anything # but the imagineers own mind? it can't, that's why it is presumed 'unreal'. # How do we tell when something is indeed imagined? 'indeeds' are for cosmologies. we each get to tell. # Perhaps a pink elephant and a talking toaster exist as 'real # agents' somewhere else? Where is that place? the purpose isn't to lock examples into categories, but to foster notions of classes. all examples are cosmologically- based and therefore limited to certain plug-ins. # The taxonomy as you are suggesting it cannot be this # non-inclusive. I tried to make mine a little more # geared towards understanding that there must first be # a being to imagine a thing. reasonable. as long as we're talking about humans doing the conversing, then it will be helpful. # So my Imaginary agents are at the bottom of the list. k00l. # However the idea of God has to be included as an # agent of communication in the taxonomy as well. # Which I tried to do. whatever. gods, spirits, whatever is considered by the discussion participant as 'real'. to you gods will be 'real', to others something else will be and gods will be 'imaginary'. what is plugged into them isn't important as much as the division into some kind of classes that segments the cosmology. ----- #> one issue immediately obvious to me pertains to angels: #> are they, as you understand it, ALIVE? or does that #> require biology of some kind? # # ...To them they are "alive" and we are "the living." # To be "living" distinctly pertains to being born in # physicality, living through it in a linear fashion, # and then dying or leaving that bodily habitation. # The soul however or Spirit, is "alive" it is the # essence of life. So yes the angels are Alive. But # they are not living, like we are. Or in a sense, # we are not 'alive' like they are. Well, part of # us is, but we tend not to recognize it. Usually # when we do. We then die to this plane and reside # on theirs. thanks. I'll consider that in revision of the taxonomy. re criteria identifying communicating agents: # ...I found out whether [the agents] believe in God, # denied God or served something other than God. To me # God is defined as everything good. And this means God # offers healing, regeneration, growth, guidance, light # in darkness and assuages feelings of hate, hopelessness, # guilt, anxiety and fear. That's my belief system. # Anything which did not serve such purposes, to me, # was offering nothing I wanted. Regardless of what the # entities were that were making the offer. conformity with your axioms. ok. # The angels then told me how to heal myself of an # illness that I had on-going for some months that # doctors could not seem to combat. I tried their way. # It worked. .... reliability of advice applied. nice. # ...Others whom I have known, have asked them for # help through me, or asked to get to know their own # "angels" this has happened. People get healed.... reproduceability in others. k00l. # ...However I also get a lot of "information" which # is neither good nor bad, but which definitely seems # to be proven to be "true" at a later date. confirmability of information in later investigation, inclusive of prophecy, clairvoyance, and detailing systems of knowledge such as history and cosmology. ok. # ...I am convinced these are angels. If not they are # taking an awful long road to simply trick me or hurt # me. Of course they could have all the time in the # universe to do this. But they have always been # correct and always been loving, kind, considerate and # respectful of my boundries.... inerrancy, beneficence, patience. keen. ----- thanks. that was very clear and helpful. nagasiva
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|