Semantics

2007-3-5 14:38:00

Dean writes:

I was not insinuating. I was questioning.

You were insinuating with a question,

Here it is: "Does this mean you are decieved into serving the 'dark' by promoting and serving DK and the Christ, until the "truth" makes you free and you start promoting the other higher more evolved entity?"

If that is not an insinuation I do not know what is.

It is easy to insinuate with questions. For instance: Why do you hate your wife?

Dean:

I'm not a moving target; your understanding of what I am saying is moving.

I think you are a moving target to everyone but yourself. You are like a guy in orbit going 25,000 miles an hour and looking out the window at the stillness saying: "All is still."

Dean quoting me:

The sad fact is that many who see themselves as representing Light are deceived into accepting and even promoting diminished freedom and thus become unwilling servants for the Dark Ones, until the truth makes them free.

Dean:

Now this statement applies to everyone. To higher entities, your statement would apply directly to us. Let me explain why. They would not perceive it the way you have worded it exactly. They do not perceive us as "dark" in the way we are thinking in this context.

That's why I am trying to point this out. That they have more understanding, more light. So according to your quote, an entity above us, could look at us as following less understanding, less light, etc. Just as you look at someone with less understanding being 'deceived' into a dark path below you.

This is completely untrue and misguided. You have blatantly stated that we may be "serving the 'dark' by promoting and serving DK and the Christ." No one is on the dark side when he is attempting to take his next step in progress and filling the measure of his creation. Would we say that a beaver is serving darkness because he does not understand human concepts? Of course not. If he is fulfilling the measure of his creation then he is serving the light is his own way just as a human disciple is. Correspondingly, if a human is taking his next step he is serving the light in his own measure just as the Solar Logos would be.

Dean:

You call them "dark ones following a dark path deceived." So equally it would appear we are following a darker path to higher entities.

It doesn't appear that way at all. I've explained this many times but you must gloss over my writings. If a person is moving forward in his progress then he is not on a dark path. A person takes the dark path when he ignores the path forward and reverts to reestablishing the past as the main standard. I've written on this in quite a bit of detail so do not wish to repeat myself too much here.

Dean:

Your definition of "deceived" is that something has gone wrong for their progression forward. But progression is always going forward even when it's what you say is a stagnation or deceived state. The stagnation periods are also other aspects of cycles of progression in themselves. Now this is the law of correspondence. As below so Above.

You are arguing with semantics here which shows that you are arguing for arguments sake.

For instance, Let's say I decide to take a trip from Boise to Salt Lake. Then half way there I decide to go off the main route and go to Preston, Idaho where they filmed Napoleon Dynamite. I stay there two days, then backtrack and move onward to Salt Lake. If you really wanted to argue just for argument's sake you could say that the detour to Preston was a necessary part of the trip because we have to look at the trip as a whole.

BUT a realistic and practical view does away with such a senseless argument. Realistically, one would have to concede that the trip was intended to take five hours and the trip to Preston was an unplanned detour that greatly delayed the arrival.

You will always be able to argue with every word I say because that is your mindset and with this mindset you can twist concepts and words to argue any point. But where does it get you? Nowhere, because your arguments are more designed around word play than getting at the truth.

I'm sure that many of my readers are impatient with me answering you at all but when I do not have time for a serious post I find that responding to you is somewhat like taking recess.

Our world has endured at least 17 mass extinctions through the years.
"Not By Fire But By Ice"
By Robert Felix, Preface