[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: [ANN] open4-0.6.0

Berger, Daniel

8/31/2006 7:48:00 PM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ara.t.howard@noaa.gov [mailto:ara.t.howard@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:22 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: [ANN] open4-0.6.0
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Berger, Daniel wrote:
>
> > Not exactly. For example, I see this under alib:
> >
> > alib
> > 0.4.0
> > alib-0.4.0.gem
> > 0.4.0
> > alib-0.4.0.tgz
> >
> > Instead of just:
> >
> > alib
> > 0.4.0
> > alib-0.4.0.gem
> > alib-0.4.0.tgz
> >
> > I didn't even realize that GForge allowed identical release
> names for
> > the same package. Maybe this has nothing to do with the problem,
> > however. I'm just guessing.
>
> ah. didn't know you could do that! in any case i've been
> doing for a looong time so i'm sure it's not the problem in
> this case... i'll look into it for my rubyforge script.

Yes, when you put out a release (using the web form) you'll see an
option to "Add file to this release". That's what I use. I prefer my
approach because it's a little less confusing (to me), and saves screen
real estate. I have a feeling it's also easier to manage in terms of
show/edit in the Admin section.

For example, if you wanted to hide the 0.3.1 release for alib, wouldn't
you have to perform two edits? One for the gem and one for the .tgz
file?

But, hey, far be it from me to tell you how to organize your project. :)

> > It would require C I'm afraid. The win32-open3 package is one of
> > those that can't properly be converted to pure Ruby.
> Perhaps a simple
> > facade is in order.
>
> that's ok. a facade would be fine.
>
> >> next i'll have you help me make posixlock cross-platform ;-)
> >
> > I haven't looked at the source yet, but I suppose I would start with
> > Lock() and LockEx():
> >
> >
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/e...
> > ta
> > 5/html/wce50lrfLockFile.asp
>
> right. i'd like both those and fctnl (posix) based locking
> wrapped into a single
>
> file.lock File::LOCK_EX
>
> interface that mimics File#flock
>
> if you have a minute check out posixlock - it's really short.
> which win32 lib
> might already have locking builtin?

The wrappers for the raw C functions would be in windows-pr
(windows/file). However, I just realized I haven't included the
appropriate constants for those functions (dangit). I'll do that this
weekend.

I'll take a look at posixlock and see what I can come up with.

Regards,

Dan


This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments.

10 Answers

Pieter

10/8/2009 10:58:00 PM

0


"expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:halo0i$up9$1@svr7.m-online.net...
> On Thu Oct 08 2009 22:08:45 GMT+0200
> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> On 8 okt, 15:37, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de> wrote:
>>> On Wed Oct 07 2009 11:03:24 GMT+0200Pieter <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 7 okt, 00:33, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> On Tue Oct 06 2009 21:18:07 GMT+0200
>>> >> Pieter <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> >>> On 5 okt, 16:42, george <georgeculol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> Completely agreed.
>>> >>> My brothers ARE perfect; it makes no difference if
>>> >>> they don't know that themselves. They are perfect
>>> >>> (and one with one another and with God) because
>>> >>> God created them. That we temporary have forgotten
>>> >>> our perfection and dream of being imperfect and doing
>>> >>> imperfect things, makes no difference for what we are
>>> >>> in truth.
>>> >>> In order to remember our true nature, our perceptions
>>> >>> must be healed by means of forgiveness; looking with
>>> >>> the vision of Christ.
>>> >>> We cannot simply brush off perception; it has to be
>>> >>> healed before it can be translated into knowledge.
>>> >> Why bother to "forgive/heal" illusions (the unreal)?
>>> >
>>> > Who says that illusions must be forgiven?
>>> > That of course makes no sense.
>>> > It is PERCEPTION that must be healed;
>>> > that is: no longer perceiving as real what is but illusion.
>>> > The healing process is relinquishing the investment
>>> > in illusions. When the process is completed,
>>> > perception is no longer necessary.
>>> > Knowledge doesn't need perception.
>>>
>>> Well, Pieter, seems you believe that not *all*
>>> "PERCEPTION" is illusion/*show*.
>>
>> - Why do you think so?
>> Return from perception to knowledge
>> is only possible via healed perception.
>> If perception is not healed, one continues
>> to be trapped in it.
>>
>>> I think it's
>>> a fundamentally crappy idea for one's wellbeing
>>> to depend on anything that is not absolute self.
>>> --expires
>
> Pieter, so the movie has to be healed/happy before
> one can stop wanting the movie to appear (so) real?
> --expires

Since projection makes perception,
the mind which is projecting illusions
as if they were real must be healed.
The sick mind thinks that what it
perceives as outside itself IS outside
itself and has nothing to do with it. So
it has to learn that this "outside world"
which it perceives nevertheless is its
own projection. - This is not about
physical matter (which is nothing in
or of itself), but any meaning the mind
has given to what it sees. Of course:
everyone can stop wanting to be sick
(separated); that is a pre-requisite for
the healing process to occur.


expires

10/10/2009 3:08:00 AM

0

On Fri Oct 09 2009 00:57:41 GMT+0200
Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
> news:halo0i$up9$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>> On Thu Oct 08 2009 22:08:45 GMT+0200
>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> On 8 okt, 15:37, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de> wrote:
>>>> On Wed Oct 07 2009 11:03:24 GMT+0200Pieter <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 7 okt, 00:33, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> On Tue Oct 06 2009 21:18:07 GMT+0200
>>>> >> Pieter <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>> >>> On 5 okt, 16:42, george <georgeculol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> Completely agreed.
>>>> >>> My brothers ARE perfect; it makes no difference if
>>>> >>> they don't know that themselves. They are perfect
>>>> >>> (and one with one another and with God) because
>>>> >>> God created them. That we temporary have forgotten
>>>> >>> our perfection and dream of being imperfect and doing
>>>> >>> imperfect things, makes no difference for what we are
>>>> >>> in truth.
>>>> >>> In order to remember our true nature, our perceptions
>>>> >>> must be healed by means of forgiveness; looking with
>>>> >>> the vision of Christ.
>>>> >>> We cannot simply brush off perception; it has to be
>>>> >>> healed before it can be translated into knowledge.
>>>> >> Why bother to "forgive/heal" illusions (the unreal)?
>>>> >
>>>> > Who says that illusions must be forgiven?
>>>> > That of course makes no sense.
>>>> > It is PERCEPTION that must be healed;
>>>> > that is: no longer perceiving as real what is but illusion.
>>>> > The healing process is relinquishing the investment
>>>> > in illusions. When the process is completed,
>>>> > perception is no longer necessary.
>>>> > Knowledge doesn't need perception.
>>>>
>>>> Well, Pieter, seems you believe that not *all*
>>>> "PERCEPTION" is illusion/*show*.
>>> - Why do you think so?
>>> Return from perception to knowledge
>>> is only possible via healed perception.
>>> If perception is not healed, one continues
>>> to be trapped in it.
>>>
>>>> I think it's
>>>> a fundamentally crappy idea for one's wellbeing
>>>> to depend on anything that is not absolute self.
>>>> --expires
>> Pieter, so the movie has to be healed/happy before
>> one can stop wanting the movie to appear (so) real?
>> --expires
>
> Since projection makes perception,
> the mind which is projecting illusions
> as if they were real must be healed.
> The sick mind thinks that what it
> perceives as outside itself IS outside
> itself and has nothing to do with it. So
> it has to learn that this "outside world"
> which it perceives nevertheless is its
> own projection. - This is not about
> physical matter (which is nothing in
> or of itself), but any meaning the mind
> has given to what it sees. Of course:
> everyone can stop wanting to be sick
> (separated); that is a pre-requisite for
> the healing process to occur.

Are you, Pieter, "projecting illusions"?
How does one, you for example, project reality?
Isn't it so, that *all* projections/perceptions
are nothing other than illusions? Being part of
a mass-hallucination is sick, and it might well
be, that demanding a happy mass-hallucination to
become willing and able to withdraw from this
(our) mass-hallucination (to awake from it), is
the most perfect plan to never awake from it.
--expires

Pieter

10/10/2009 10:04:00 AM

0


"expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:haotre$cti$1@svr7.m-online.net...
> On Fri Oct 09 2009 00:57:41 GMT+0200
> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:

>> Since projection makes perception,
>> the mind which is projecting illusions
>> as if they were real must be healed.
>> The sick mind thinks that what it
>> perceives as outside itself IS outside
>> itself and has nothing to do with it. So
>> it has to learn that this "outside world"
>> which it perceives nevertheless is its
>> own projection. - This is not about
>> physical matter (which is nothing in
>> or of itself), but any meaning the mind
>> has given to what it sees. Of course:
>> everyone can stop wanting to be sick
>> (separated); that is a pre-requisite for
>> the healing process to occur.
>
> Are you, Pieter, "projecting illusions"?
> How does one, you for example, project reality?

That is what ACIM is about.
"Teach only love, for that is what you are."

> Isn't it so, that *all* projections/perceptions
> are nothing other than illusions?

The question is unanswerable, since
you couple projection with perception.
Listen to what ACIM has to say on projection:

"Projection is a fundamental law of the mind, and therefore
one which ALWAYS operates. It is the law by which you
create and were created. It is the law which unifies the
Kingdom and keeps it in the mind of God. To the ego, the
law is perceived as a way of getting RID of something it
does NOT want. To the Holy Spirit, it is the fundamental
law of sharing, by which you give what you value in order
to keep it in your OWN minds. Projection to the Holy Spirit
is the law of extension. To the ego, it is the law of deprivation.
It therefore produces abundance or scarcity, depending on
how you choose to apply it."


> Being part of
> a mass-hallucination is sick, and it might well
> be, that demanding a happy mass-hallucination to
> become willing and able to withdraw from this
> (our) mass-hallucination (to awake from it), is
> the most perfect plan to never awake from it.
> --expires



expires

10/10/2009 11:37:00 AM

0

On Sat Oct 10 2009 12:03:32 GMT+0200
Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
> news:haotre$cti$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>> On Fri Oct 09 2009 00:57:41 GMT+0200
>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>>> Since projection makes perception,
>>> the mind which is projecting illusions
>>> as if they were real must be healed.
>>> The sick mind thinks that what it
>>> perceives as outside itself IS outside
>>> itself and has nothing to do with it. So
>>> it has to learn that this "outside world"
>>> which it perceives nevertheless is its
>>> own projection. - This is not about
>>> physical matter (which is nothing in
>>> or of itself), but any meaning the mind
>>> has given to what it sees. Of course:
>>> everyone can stop wanting to be sick
>>> (separated); that is a pre-requisite for
>>> the healing process to occur.
>> Are you, Pieter, "projecting illusions"?
>> How does one, you for example, project reality?
>
> That is what ACIM is about.
> "Teach only love, for that is what you are."
>
>> Isn't it so, that *all* projections/perceptions
>> are nothing other than illusions?
>
> The question is unanswerable, since
> you couple projection with perception.
> Listen to what ACIM has to say on projection:
>
> "Projection is a fundamental law of the mind, and therefore
> one which ALWAYS operates. It is the law by which you
> create and were created. It is the law which unifies the
> Kingdom and keeps it in the mind of God. To the ego, the
> law is perceived as a way of getting RID of something it
> does NOT want. To the Holy Spirit, it is the fundamental
> law of sharing, by which you give what you value in order
> to keep it in your OWN minds. Projection to the Holy Spirit
> is the law of extension. To the ego, it is the law of deprivation.
> It therefore produces abundance or scarcity, depending on
> how you choose to apply it."
>
>
>> Being part of
>> a mass-hallucination is sick, and it might well
>> be, that demanding a happy mass-hallucination to
>> become willing and able to withdraw from this
>> (our) mass-hallucination (to awake from it), is
>> the most perfect plan to never awake from it.
>> --expires

So, according to you/ACIM, I am ultimately nothing other
than a projection that can do nothing other than com-
pulsively project? What if I just want to be without
projecting (what I'm inclined to call imagining) any-
thing at all, not love, no abundance, no pain, no fear.
Do I not have the unconditional freedom of will to project
nothing at all? To just be! To just watch! Nothing more,
nothing less!? And what's the point of projecting any-
thing anyway, if it's not perceived? Perceived by another?
ACIM, all put together, increasingly appears nonsensical to
me, as ACIM also says that God and Holy Spirit are basically
nothing other than ideas themselves. Now, how can God/HS be
ultimate reality/truth/cause, without answering what is the
cause/source of the ideas of God/HS? Is God then perhaps
only the God of mind(s)/creation/projection, with some much
deeper truth and being(ness) behind the phenomena of mind(s)?
If so, why not try to go past the/all level(s) of mind(s) and
its/their compulsive projecting/creating altogether, go to
true liberation, from all dramas, to pure being(ness) itself!?
--expires

Pieter

10/10/2009 10:46:00 PM

0


"expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:haprkt$94o$1@svr7.m-online.net...
> On Sat Oct 10 2009 12:03:32 GMT+0200
> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
>> news:haotre$cti$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>>> On Fri Oct 09 2009 00:57:41 GMT+0200
>>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>> Since projection makes perception,
>>>> the mind which is projecting illusions
>>>> as if they were real must be healed.
>>>> The sick mind thinks that what it
>>>> perceives as outside itself IS outside
>>>> itself and has nothing to do with it. So
>>>> it has to learn that this "outside world"
>>>> which it perceives nevertheless is its
>>>> own projection. - This is not about
>>>> physical matter (which is nothing in
>>>> or of itself), but any meaning the mind
>>>> has given to what it sees. Of course:
>>>> everyone can stop wanting to be sick
>>>> (separated); that is a pre-requisite for
>>>> the healing process to occur.
>>> Are you, Pieter, "projecting illusions"?
>>> How does one, you for example, project reality?
>>
>> That is what ACIM is about.
>> "Teach only love, for that is what you are."
>>
>>> Isn't it so, that *all* projections/perceptions
>>> are nothing other than illusions?
>>
>> The question is unanswerable, since
>> you couple projection with perception.
>> Listen to what ACIM has to say on projection:
>>
>> "Projection is a fundamental law of the mind, and therefore
>> one which ALWAYS operates. It is the law by which you
>> create and were created. It is the law which unifies the
>> Kingdom and keeps it in the mind of God. To the ego, the
>> law is perceived as a way of getting RID of something it
>> does NOT want. To the Holy Spirit, it is the fundamental
>> law of sharing, by which you give what you value in order
>> to keep it in your OWN minds. Projection to the Holy Spirit
>> is the law of extension. To the ego, it is the law of deprivation.
>> It therefore produces abundance or scarcity, depending on
>> how you choose to apply it."
>
> So, according to you/ACIM, I am ultimately nothing other
> than a projection that can do nothing other than com-
> pulsively project?

A physical example:
The sun projects warmth and light.
Is that a "task" it has to fulfill?
No: it just is its nature,
its freedom, to do that.


> What if I just want to be without
> projecting (what I'm inclined to call imagining) any-
> thing at all, not love, no abundance, no pain, no fear.
> Do I not have the unconditional freedom of will to project
> nothing at all? To just be! To just watch!

This sounds to me like trying to live
without breathing. If we are created
love, then it is natural to extend it.
Love cannot be contained.

> Nothing more,
> nothing less!? And what's the point of projecting any-
> thing anyway, if it's not perceived? Perceived by another?

Perception always has to do with form.
In principle minds can communicate directly,
imo as soon as they actually experience
not to be separate.

> ACIM, all put together, increasingly appears nonsensical to
> me, as ACIM also says that God and Holy Spirit are basically
> nothing other than ideas themselves.

Do you have a low esteem of ideas?

> Now, how can God/HS be
> ultimate reality/truth/cause, without answering what is the
> cause/source of the ideas of God/HS?

God is not effect, but Cause.

> Is God then perhaps
> only the God of mind(s)/creation/projection, with some much
> deeper truth and being(ness) behind the phenomena of mind(s)?
> If so, why not try to go past the/all level(s) of mind(s) and
> its/their compulsive projecting/creating altogether, go to
> true liberation, from all dramas, to pure being(ness) itself!?
> --expires

Imo all answers will be given
in proportion to the removal of
the blocks to the awareness of
love's presence.


expires

10/11/2009 2:34:00 AM

0

On Sun Oct 11 2009 00:45:48 GMT+0200
Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
> news:haprkt$94o$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>> On Sat Oct 10 2009 12:03:32 GMT+0200
>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
>>> news:haotre$cti$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>>>> On Fri Oct 09 2009 00:57:41 GMT+0200
>>>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>> Since projection makes perception,
>>>>> the mind which is projecting illusions
>>>>> as if they were real must be healed.
>>>>> The sick mind thinks that what it
>>>>> perceives as outside itself IS outside
>>>>> itself and has nothing to do with it. So
>>>>> it has to learn that this "outside world"
>>>>> which it perceives nevertheless is its
>>>>> own projection. - This is not about
>>>>> physical matter (which is nothing in
>>>>> or of itself), but any meaning the mind
>>>>> has given to what it sees. Of course:
>>>>> everyone can stop wanting to be sick
>>>>> (separated); that is a pre-requisite for
>>>>> the healing process to occur.
>>>> Are you, Pieter, "projecting illusions"?
>>>> How does one, you for example, project reality?
>>> That is what ACIM is about.
>>> "Teach only love, for that is what you are."
>>>
>>>> Isn't it so, that *all* projections/perceptions
>>>> are nothing other than illusions?
>>> The question is unanswerable, since
>>> you couple projection with perception.
>>> Listen to what ACIM has to say on projection:
>>>
>>> "Projection is a fundamental law of the mind, and therefore
>>> one which ALWAYS operates. It is the law by which you
>>> create and were created. It is the law which unifies the
>>> Kingdom and keeps it in the mind of God. To the ego, the
>>> law is perceived as a way of getting RID of something it
>>> does NOT want. To the Holy Spirit, it is the fundamental
>>> law of sharing, by which you give what you value in order
>>> to keep it in your OWN minds. Projection to the Holy Spirit
>>> is the law of extension. To the ego, it is the law of deprivation.
>>> It therefore produces abundance or scarcity, depending on
>>> how you choose to apply it."
>> So, according to you/ACIM, I am ultimately nothing other
>> than a projection that can do nothing other than com-
>> pulsively project?
>
> A physical example:
> The sun projects warmth and light.
> Is that a "task" it has to fulfill?
> No: it just is its nature,
> its freedom, to do that.

Bad example/analogy, or do you think
"the sun" can experience pain or fear?

>> What if I just want to be without
>> projecting (what I'm inclined to call imagining) any-
>> thing at all, not love, no abundance, no pain, no fear.
>> Do I not have the unconditional freedom of will to project
>> nothing at all? To just be! To just watch!
>
> This sounds to me like trying to live
> without breathing. If we are created
> love, then it is natural to extend it.
> Love cannot be contained.

Another bad/too physical (breathing) example/analogy.
And if we are love which "cannot be contained", then
what's the/your fuss about. If it's so inevitable,
so unstoppable, why bother to contradict me at all?

>> Nothing more,
>> nothing less!? And what's the point of projecting any-
>> thing anyway, if it's not perceived? Perceived by another?
>
> Perception always has to do with form.
> In principle minds can communicate directly,
> imo as soon as they actually experience
> not to be separate.

Nonsense, IMO, if you can't say what formless
communication is. Ideas are form too, no matter
how abstract. And, wouldn't you say that minds
without form/thoughts/etc in them can only be
empty/inactive minds? Just mere potential.

>> ACIM, all put together, increasingly appears nonsensical to
>> me, as ACIM also says that God and Holy Spirit are basically
>> nothing other than ideas themselves.
>
> Do you have a low esteem of ideas?

Depends on the idea(s). IOW, IMO a silly,
because ridiculously generalized question.

>> Now, how can God/HS be
>> ultimate reality/truth/cause, without answering what is the
>> cause/source of the ideas of God/HS?
>
> God is not effect, but Cause.

So you and others say. FMPOV, God is both, cause and effect.
Question is, caused by what and causing what. Point is that
if God is an idea (ACIM says so), then..., logically, God
can not be the fundamental/primary/absolute "Cause".

>> Is God then perhaps
>> only the God of mind(s)/creation/projection, with some much
>> deeper truth and being(ness) behind the phenomena of mind(s)?
>> If so, why not try to go past the/all level(s) of mind(s) and
>> its/their compulsive projecting/creating altogether, go to
>> true liberation, from all dramas, to pure being(ness) itself!?
>> --expires
>
> Imo all answers will be given
> in proportion to the removal of
> the blocks to the awareness of
> love's presence.

<irony>Oh yeah, there's been lots of "love" coming from this
newsgroup in my direction in the last couple of months.</irony>
Anyway, to me love is given/received, some"thing" that's done,
and not something one is. It's a choice, a principal, a law, an
activity, etc, but not fundamental being(ness) itself. So to be
"it" is FMPOV a misconception of absolute/fundamental (S)elf.
--expires

Pieter

10/11/2009 9:20:00 PM

0


"expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:harg6n$gr9$1@svr7.m-online.net...
> On Sun Oct 11 2009 00:45:48 GMT+0200
> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
>> news:haprkt$94o$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>>> On Sat Oct 10 2009 12:03:32 GMT+0200
>>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
>>>> news:haotre$cti$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>>>>> On Fri Oct 09 2009 00:57:41 GMT+0200
>>>>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> Since projection makes perception,
>>>>>> the mind which is projecting illusions
>>>>>> as if they were real must be healed.
>>>>>> The sick mind thinks that what it
>>>>>> perceives as outside itself IS outside
>>>>>> itself and has nothing to do with it. So
>>>>>> it has to learn that this "outside world"
>>>>>> which it perceives nevertheless is its
>>>>>> own projection. - This is not about
>>>>>> physical matter (which is nothing in
>>>>>> or of itself), but any meaning the mind
>>>>>> has given to what it sees. Of course:
>>>>>> everyone can stop wanting to be sick
>>>>>> (separated); that is a pre-requisite for
>>>>>> the healing process to occur.
>>>>> Are you, Pieter, "projecting illusions"?
>>>>> How does one, you for example, project reality?
>>>> That is what ACIM is about.
>>>> "Teach only love, for that is what you are."
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it so, that *all* projections/perceptions
>>>>> are nothing other than illusions?
>>>> The question is unanswerable, since
>>>> you couple projection with perception.
>>>> Listen to what ACIM has to say on projection:
>>>>
>>>> "Projection is a fundamental law of the mind, and therefore
>>>> one which ALWAYS operates. It is the law by which you
>>>> create and were created. It is the law which unifies the
>>>> Kingdom and keeps it in the mind of God. To the ego, the
>>>> law is perceived as a way of getting RID of something it
>>>> does NOT want. To the Holy Spirit, it is the fundamental
>>>> law of sharing, by which you give what you value in order
>>>> to keep it in your OWN minds. Projection to the Holy Spirit
>>>> is the law of extension. To the ego, it is the law of deprivation.
>>>> It therefore produces abundance or scarcity, depending on
>>>> how you choose to apply it."
>>> So, according to you/ACIM, I am ultimately nothing other
>>> than a projection that can do nothing other than com-
>>> pulsively project?
>>
>> A physical example:
>> The sun projects warmth and light.
>> Is that a "task" it has to fulfill?
>> No: it just is its nature,
>> its freedom, to do that.
>
> Bad example/analogy, or do you think
> "the sun" can experience pain or fear?

Examples always fall short,
especially if used as they were not meant.

>>> What if I just want to be without
>>> projecting (what I'm inclined to call imagining) any-
>>> thing at all, not love, no abundance, no pain, no fear.
>>> Do I not have the unconditional freedom of will to project
>>> nothing at all? To just be! To just watch!
>>
>> This sounds to me like trying to live
>> without breathing. If we are created
>> love, then it is natural to extend it.
>> Love cannot be contained.
>
> Another bad/too physical (breathing) example/analogy.
> And if we are love which "cannot be contained", then
> what's the/your fuss about. If it's so inevitable,
> so unstoppable, why bother to contradict me at all?

So you think I am contradicting you.
ACIM says that because of the separation
we think we are what we are not; that means
that our true nature is beyond our awareness.
(That's why in ACIM this state is called "sleep".)
Only when the split is healed, or the blocks to
the awareness of love's presence are removed,
is awareness of our true nature regained.

>>> Nothing more,
>>> nothing less!? And what's the point of projecting any-
>>> thing anyway, if it's not perceived? Perceived by another?
>>
>> Perception always has to do with form.
>> In principle minds can communicate directly,
>> imo as soon as they actually experience
>> not to be separate.
>
> Nonsense, IMO, if you can't say what formless
> communication is. Ideas are form too, no matter
> how abstract.

Why do you think so?

> And, wouldn't you say that minds
> without form/thoughts/etc in them can only be
> empty/inactive minds? Just mere potential.

You say that ideas are form too.
That would mean that, since "mind" is an
idea, "mind without form" is an impossibility.

>>> ACIM, all put together, increasingly appears nonsensical to
>>> me, as ACIM also says that God and Holy Spirit are basically
>>> nothing other than ideas themselves.
>>
>> Do you have a low esteem of ideas?
>
> Depends on the idea(s). IOW, IMO a silly,
> because ridiculously generalized question.

If God is an idea, then to you
ACIM is nonsensical. Does not that
imply that for you an idea is but an idea?

>>> Now, how can God/HS be
>>> ultimate reality/truth/cause, without answering what is the
>>> cause/source of the ideas of God/HS?
>>
>> God is not effect, but Cause.
>
> So you and others say. FMPOV, God is both, cause and effect.
> Question is, caused by what and causing what. Point is that
> if God is an idea (ACIM says so), then..., logically, God
> can not be the fundamental/primary/absolute "Cause".

For you an idea apparently is a derivative.

>>> Is God then perhaps
>>> only the God of mind(s)/creation/projection, with some much
>>> deeper truth and being(ness) behind the phenomena of mind(s)?
>>> If so, why not try to go past the/all level(s) of mind(s) and
>>> its/their compulsive projecting/creating altogether, go to
>>> true liberation, from all dramas, to pure being(ness) itself!?
>>> --expires
>>
>> Imo all answers will be given
>> in proportion to the removal of
>> the blocks to the awareness of
>> love's presence.
>
> <irony>Oh yeah, there's been lots of "love" coming from this
> newsgroup in my direction in the last couple of months.</irony>
> Anyway, to me love is given/received, some"thing" that's done,
> and not something one is. It's a choice, a principal, a law, an activity,
> etc, but not fundamental being(ness) itself.

That is because of the separation.
When it is healed, we know again.

> So to be
> "it" is FMPOV a misconception of absolute/fundamental (S)elf.
> --expires


expires

10/12/2009 5:15:00 PM

0

On Sun Oct 11 2009 23:20:14 GMT+0200
Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
> news:harg6n$gr9$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>> On Sun Oct 11 2009 00:45:48 GMT+0200
>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
>>> news:haprkt$94o$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>>>> On Sat Oct 10 2009 12:03:32 GMT+0200
>>>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
>>>>> news:haotre$cti$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>>>>>> On Fri Oct 09 2009 00:57:41 GMT+0200
>>>>>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>> Since projection makes perception,
>>>>>>> the mind which is projecting illusions
>>>>>>> as if they were real must be healed.
>>>>>>> The sick mind thinks that what it
>>>>>>> perceives as outside itself IS outside
>>>>>>> itself and has nothing to do with it. So
>>>>>>> it has to learn that this "outside world"
>>>>>>> which it perceives nevertheless is its
>>>>>>> own projection. - This is not about
>>>>>>> physical matter (which is nothing in
>>>>>>> or of itself), but any meaning the mind
>>>>>>> has given to what it sees. Of course:
>>>>>>> everyone can stop wanting to be sick
>>>>>>> (separated); that is a pre-requisite for
>>>>>>> the healing process to occur.
>>>>>> Are you, Pieter, "projecting illusions"?
>>>>>> How does one, you for example, project reality?
>>>>> That is what ACIM is about.
>>>>> "Teach only love, for that is what you are."
>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it so, that *all* projections/perceptions
>>>>>> are nothing other than illusions?
>>>>> The question is unanswerable, since
>>>>> you couple projection with perception.
>>>>> Listen to what ACIM has to say on projection:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Projection is a fundamental law of the mind, and therefore
>>>>> one which ALWAYS operates. It is the law by which you
>>>>> create and were created. It is the law which unifies the
>>>>> Kingdom and keeps it in the mind of God. To the ego, the
>>>>> law is perceived as a way of getting RID of something it
>>>>> does NOT want. To the Holy Spirit, it is the fundamental
>>>>> law of sharing, by which you give what you value in order
>>>>> to keep it in your OWN minds. Projection to the Holy Spirit
>>>>> is the law of extension. To the ego, it is the law of deprivation.
>>>>> It therefore produces abundance or scarcity, depending on
>>>>> how you choose to apply it."
>>>> So, according to you/ACIM, I am ultimately nothing other
>>>> than a projection that can do nothing other than com-
>>>> pulsively project?
>>> A physical example:
>>> The sun projects warmth and light.
>>> Is that a "task" it has to fulfill?
>>> No: it just is its nature,
>>> its freedom, to do that.
>> Bad example/analogy, or do you think
>> "the sun" can experience pain or fear?
>
> Examples always fall short,
> especially if used as they were not meant.

With that one could justify any (bad) example/analogy.
IOW, you're being very (Pieter-typically) evasive here.

>>>> What if I just want to be without
>>>> projecting (what I'm inclined to call imagining) any-
>>>> thing at all, not love, no abundance, no pain, no fear.
>>>> Do I not have the unconditional freedom of will to project
>>>> nothing at all? To just be! To just watch!
>>> This sounds to me like trying to live
>>> without breathing. If we are created
>>> love, then it is natural to extend it.
>>> Love cannot be contained.
>> Another bad/too physical (breathing) example/analogy.
>> And if we are love which "cannot be contained", then
>> what's the/your fuss about. If it's so inevitable,
>> so unstoppable, why bother to contradict me at all?
>
> So you think I am contradicting you.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/...

> ACIM says that because of the separation
> we think we are what we are not; that means
> that our true nature is beyond our awareness.

Well, if your true/absolute nature is completely
"beyond [your] awareness", you only talk/write what
your idea of ACIM says is. IOW, you know nothing
other what your ideas of ACIM says are, right? No
thoughts of your own, right? If so, I'm not talking
to a person who (at least now and then) questions
what ACIM says, right? If that's so, why should I
bother discussing anything ACIM related with you?

> (That's why in ACIM this state is called "sleep".)
> Only when the split is healed, or the blocks to
> the awareness of love's presence are removed,
> is awareness of our true nature regained.

Who/what is discussing with who/what here?
The real you with the real me?

>>>> Nothing more,
>>>> nothing less!? And what's the point of projecting any-
>>>> thing anyway, if it's not perceived? Perceived by another?
>>> Perception always has to do with form.
>>> In principle minds can communicate directly,
>>> imo as soon as they actually experience
>>> not to be separate.
>> Nonsense, IMO, if you can't say what formless
>> communication is. Ideas are form too, no matter
>> how abstract.
>
> Why do you think so?

Why don't you think so?

>> And, wouldn't you say that minds
>> without form/thoughts/etc in them can only be
>> empty/inactive minds? Just mere potential.
>
> You say that ideas are form too.
> That would mean that, since "mind" is an
> idea, "mind without form" is an impossibility.

Where did I say that mind is an idea?
More important, where did I suggest/imply
that an empty mind has any form?

>>>> ACIM, all put together, increasingly appears nonsensical to
>>>> me, as ACIM also says that God and Holy Spirit are basically
>>>> nothing other than ideas themselves.
>>> Do you have a low esteem of ideas?
>> Depends on the idea(s). IOW, IMO a silly,
>> because ridiculously generalized question.
>
> If God is an idea, then to you
> ACIM is nonsensical. Does not that
> imply that for you an idea is but an idea?

a) "If God is an idea" then God is an idea,
wholly independent of ACIM is or isn't.
b) What other than an idea do you think an idea is?

>>>> Now, how can God/HS be
>>>> ultimate reality/truth/cause, without answering what is the
>>>> cause/source of the ideas of God/HS?
>>> God is not effect, but Cause.
>> So you and others say. FMPOV, God is both, cause and effect.
>> Question is, caused by what and causing what. Point is that
>> if God is an idea (ACIM says so), then..., logically, God
>> can not be the fundamental/primary/absolute "Cause".
>
> For you an idea apparently is a derivative.

Ideas being (abstract) forms, and being effects,
yes. IMHO the formless/causeless was/is even
when there was/is absolutely no form at all.
Being(ness) (IMHO obviously) was/is possible
without any form, whereas form without being(ness)
is not even nothing(ness).

>>>> Is God then perhaps
>>>> only the God of mind(s)/creation/projection, with some much
>>>> deeper truth and being(ness) behind the phenomena of mind(s)?
>>>> If so, why not try to go past the/all level(s) of mind(s) and
>>>> its/their compulsive projecting/creating altogether, go to
>>>> true liberation, from all dramas, to pure being(ness) itself!?
>>>> --expires
>>> Imo all answers will be given
>>> in proportion to the removal of
>>> the blocks to the awareness of
>>> love's presence.
>> <irony>Oh yeah, there's been lots of "love" coming from this
>> newsgroup in my direction in the last couple of months.</irony>
>> Anyway, to me love is given/received, some"thing" that's done,
>> and not something one is. It's a choice, a principal, a law,
>> an activity, etc, but not fundamental being(ness) itself.
>
> That is because of the separation.
> When it is healed, we know again.

Know what? Know pure fundamental being(ness) itself?
Pure fundamental being(ness) IMHO needs nothing, needs
to do or know nothing, not love, not expand, not project,
no "Kingdom/Heaven", no whatever. So seen "Kingdom/Heaven"
are just 'mere' ideas too. Can be, are, but must not be.
Perhaps the idea(s) that there *must be* some kind of
"Kingdom/Heaven"/activity is what needs healing. Perhaps
any/all forms of *compulsive* activity are a primary most
fundamental "sickness". Perhaps any/all conditionality,
dependency and relativity are a fundamental "sickness" too.

>> So to be
>> "it" is FMPOV a misconception of absolute/fundamental (S)elf.
>> --expires

Pieter

10/12/2009 8:16:00 PM

0


"expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:havo66$nrk$1@svr7.m-online.net...
> On Sun Oct 11 2009 23:20:14 GMT+0200
> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:

>> ACIM says that because of the separation
>> we think we are what we are not; that means
>> that our true nature is beyond our awareness.
>
> Well, if your true/absolute nature is completely
> "beyond [your] awareness", you only talk/write what
> your idea of ACIM says is. IOW, you know nothing
> other what your ideas of ACIM says are, right? No
> thoughts of your own, right? If so, I'm not talking
> to a person who (at least now and then) questions
> what ACIM says, right? If that's so, why should I
> bother discussing anything ACIM related with you?

It is because of my personal experiences
that ACIM is attractive to me at all;
they are affirmed in it.

>> (That's why in ACIM this state is called "sleep".)
>> Only when the split is healed, or the blocks to
>> the awareness of love's presence are removed,
>> is awareness of our true nature regained.
>
> Who/what is discussing with who/what here?
> The real you with the real me?

The awakening me with the awakening you.

>>> Anyway, to me love is given/received, some"thing" that's done,
>>> and not something one is. It's a choice, a principal, a law, an
>>> activity, etc, but not fundamental being(ness) itself.
>>
>> That is because of the separation.
>> When it is healed, we know again.
>
> Know what?

Reality.


expires

10/12/2009 10:45:00 PM

0

On Mon Oct 12 2009 22:16:02 GMT+0200
Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
> news:havo66$nrk$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>> On Sun Oct 11 2009 23:20:14 GMT+0200
>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>>> ACIM says that because of the separation
>>> we think we are what we are not; that means
>>> that our true nature is beyond our awareness.
>> Well, if your true/absolute nature is completely
>> "beyond [your] awareness", you only talk/write what
>> your idea of ACIM says is. IOW, you know nothing
>> other what your ideas of ACIM says are, right? No
>> thoughts of your own, right? If so, I'm not talking
>> to a person who (at least now and then) questions
>> what ACIM says, right? If that's so, why should I
>> bother discussing anything ACIM related with you?
>
> It is because of my personal experiences
> that ACIM is attractive to me at all;
> they are affirmed in it.

If that's so, then good luck to you :)

>>> (That's why in ACIM this state is called "sleep".)
>>> Only when the split is healed, or the blocks to
>>> the awareness of love's presence are removed,
>>> is awareness of our true nature regained.
>> Who/what is discussing with who/what here?
>> The real you with the real me?
>
> The awakening me with the awakening you.

Well, wanting/needing a (IMO probably very long) detour
through happy(er) dreams isn't very attractive when
compared with the idea/possibility of ending any/all
dreaming, imagining, illusions (as) directly (as possible).

>>>> Anyway, to me love is given/received, some"thing" that's done,
>>>> and not something one is. It's a choice, a principal, a law, an
>>>> activity, etc, but not fundamental being(ness) itself.
>>> That is because of the separation.
>>> When it is healed, we know again.
>> Know what?
>
> Reality.

When will that be, in years/lives/incarnations?
In (this) one, in a thousand, a million... ?
--expires