Author Topic: Problem with the third sentence of Theory  (Read 118 times)

Cory

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +7/-0
    • View Profile
Problem with the third sentence of Theory
« on: February 20, 2014, 10:15:43 pm »
Hey, I have a problem with number two sentence of the Theory section. Why does he use the word take, instead of remove things  from existence. It says here:

Start quote:

Life is a spiritual quality. It has four basic abilities:-

1.    It can bring things into existence.
2.    It can take things out of existence.
3.    It can know.
4.    It can not-know.

These actions are accomplished by postulates. A postulate is a causative consideration.

End quote

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Karalee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
  • Karma: +18/-0
  • Administrator FB Group, "Informed Dryfasting"
  • Location: California, USA
    • View Profile
    • TROM Books available here:
Re: Problem with the third sentence of Theory
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2014, 10:25:11 pm »
Hello Cory,

I think you have a valid question because you recall where Dennis said that the word "create" might be too charged for some people and so he gave two alternative RI commands?

The word "take" might also for some people be more charged than, say, the word "remove from".   He was removed from the room might sound less drastic than "he was taken from the room"

Hope that helps.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 12:44:25 am by Colleen »

Cory

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +7/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Problem with the third sentence of Theory
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2014, 12:34:18 am »
That's interesting about the word clearing. I'm talking more on the lines of the definitions that come to my mind. For me take means to grab and own. He took his coke, for example. And remove is a word that remains in present time. One is past tense and the other is present tense. I think when writing about the spirit present time words pertain better because the spirit is ultimately in the present. What do you think? But your right maybe it's just a reaction or misunderstanding.

So I would rewrite it as:

The spirit can remove things from existence. Rather than take things from existence. It seems to me take is a word that implies the spirit is going to put it someplace else once he takes it.

Karalee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
  • Karma: +18/-0
  • Administrator FB Group, "Informed Dryfasting"
  • Location: California, USA
    • View Profile
    • TROM Books available here:
Re: Problem with the third sentence of Theory
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2014, 12:55:56 am »
I ran what you are saying through my head and I got it. 

Now let's run the opposite flow:

How could the use of the word take be right?

You go first   :)







Cory

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +7/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Problem with the third sentence of Theory
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2014, 03:22:35 am »
Things can be taken out of existence.

It can take out of existence things.

Or

It can create things out of existence.

I think Ron said the same about the word create being reactive. The second one is weird because we normally don't create things out of existence with that word but bring into existence with the word create. What are some of yours?.

Now when I re-read it it doesn't seem to be a problem to me haha.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 03:58:36 am by Cory »

Cory

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +7/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Problem with the third sentence of Theory
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2014, 04:26:16 am »
I just had an idea, those 4 points are based on a spirit who is at native state. Thus there must be an opposite to those for non native state sprites to understand. I think pretty much all understanding is duality anyways. Whys he angry? He couldn't have, when he shoulda had it. Good/bad.

1) the spirit can bring things into existence for self/ the spirit can be brought into existence by others.

2) the spirit can take things out of existence for self/ the spirit can be taken out of existence by others.

3) the spirit can know self/ the spirit can know others.

4) the spirit can not-know self/ the spirit can not-know others.

Or something . What do you think?
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 05:03:05 am by Cory »