(09-01-2009, 11:08 AM)Quantum Wrote: I am almost positive that it is what we came here for.
I'm curious. What is it you think we came here for?
(09-01-2009, 11:08 AM)Quantum Wrote: To what you perceive as disagreement, I in fact agree, albeit admittedly with different perspectives or slightly different colored hues, particularly as regards my penchant of not stricturing or compartmentalizing words or concepts. Much like cloud gazing, it may be agreed that a party of two is indeed gazing upon the same cloud, but where one sees a bunny with ears the other sees a butterfly or puppy dog, notwithstanding that its just a cloud.
That analogy could be extended to signify the cloud as Truth (as from the perspective of the Creator) and ALL of our interpretations of it just that...interpretations of the same thing. But, are we satisfied with that? No. If we were, we wouldn't be having these discussions!
We already know that we're all seeing the same cloud. But we seem to have an interest in understanding why another person sees a bunny when we see a puppy.
Generally, that's ok, imo. It's fine to say "Hmmm....that's interesting that you see it that way. I see it this way." which happens a lot here at Bring4th.
Some of these discussions have ventured far beyond that, though. What I see happening is an attempt to delineate, demarcate, define, and categorize. While I can appreciate the intellectual workout such discussions provide, I also see a potential negative result; for is that not what the religions do? Do they not say "This passage from our holy book means this and not that." ...? And does that not lead to dogma, doctrine, and, ultimately, separation?
As just one example taken from the discussions of these last few days, the case of the word distortion. Such a minor thing, no? But is it a minor thing? I think not. The term distortion is probably used more in the Law of One than nearly every other word, except maybe love. (That's just a guess on my part; no I haven't counted them, but you get the idea.)
For the simple reason that it is used so much, I think it's very important that we either allow each person to interpret it for themselves, or, if we do pursue discussion of what exactly it means, then we might want to be very open to multiple offerings, for the sake of those who might be new to the books and who might take our words as absolute. By defining and categorizing concepts in the Law of One, even though to us it might just be fun, intellectual banter, we are essentially recording an evaluation/assessment/interpretation which could easily be made into a doctrine.
I think this is not just a possibility but an inevitability, and thus carries a responsibility.
This is why I felt it important to draw a distinction between the dictionary definition and what I (and others) felt was a more accurate understanding of a word as important as distortion. At the very least, contrasting ideas are presented, so that the person who is new to the Law of One might have an opportunity to consider both. While I appreciate your attempt to smooth it all over with images of bunnies in clouds, I think it would be a disservice to others on my part to agree that our disagreement about definitions doesn't matter.