Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Talk2Us
»
Tycho !! Click here...
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
jokes wrote:symbols wrote:Chief Guest wrote:symbols wrote:Chief Guest wrote:symbols wrote:Chief Guest wrote:symbols wrote:Indeed interesting. @danas10 - Accommodate my question to satisfy my curiosity(mine is also a straightforward question.yes or no  ) Can you walk on darkness? You walk ON it or IN it? That's the question. Well, then Yes (only in the abstract can u walk ON darkness considering sight is creative/imaginatively so to speak.) Is blindness sight Blindness is ignorant sight. Do you need to see if you already know? the appropriate question is, 'do you need to know if you already know?' No,no? 
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
jokes wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:David? Not Cain?  I've been wondering who this David is, now I wonder how one can give Cain a run for 'his money'. Symbols can clarify. But has Cain ever stopped running? Running towards what? Or away from what/who? And who is this asking about Cain? Abel. Your Abel is becoming Cain. Abel cannot deny his brother. We grew up together and received the same instructions among other things. The only difference was the decisions we each took. If everything else was the same, why the difference? He was an angry man. What made him angry? And how did Abel not get angry with this thing? that's an interesting one. never thought it that way. if they were brought up the same , what happened to make them different, the ego i presume which we have no control over, the invisible hand that we refuse to see? God? It's not invisible.It's just to obvious to notice like fish with water.We use it to cover our nakedness.Pride rules this world.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:I saw the other signature you had. The one with boxes and inverted characters and I couldn't get one of the words. And now again this one is has the same 'challenge'. Makes me wonder if you're still following the breath. No I'm not.I'm fading into it. What word?There is no challenge in this one.Just a funny joke I found. Muriel wrote:David? Not Cain? King David. Ooooh! That's different. But what is he more known by? His dance or his music?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Cain's problem; Why should God be pleased by receiving goodness and shun evil when he knows both good and evil, therefore responsible for both good and evil. Why shouldn't he look favorably on Cain's sacrifice?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Cain: The issue was not what he wondered or thought but what he did.
Cain: He made an attempt to obey. He brought something. He did something. He could have refused flatly and instead went to the shamba as usual as Abel did his 'weird' stuff.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The eaters ate but did not die on that day. Instead something else did. A temporary symbol of a certain permanent surety. A prefiguration. Hence the promise of a certain 'seed'. Thereafter "unto adam and his wife did the lord God make coats of skins and clothed them". All that the eaters and Cain and Abel had now to do was to recognise that promised permanent surety (the anti-type) in its current (to them) and temporary symbol (the type).
Cain: Had only to see the anti-type in the type, to see the typology, to see the symbology.
The surety and its symbol died, not just die but had its blood spilt.
In all this, the slain symbology, typology, prefiguration, the anti-type and type, Abel observed the fulfillment of the warning 'ye shall surely die' and believed the 'warner', the speaker. Abel did not do much. Cain did not have to do much. The eaters did not do much.
Cain: The matter at hand was not so much to do with God as it had to do with Cain and what he did - and Abel and what he did.
So back to Cain. Shida yake ili kuwa wapi, honestly? Jameni.
Cain: Could he have recognised anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not recognise the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings.
Ps. i just love you guys, Symbols and Tycho, how you came to choose your usernames tells me there is no coincidence.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
symbols wrote:jokes wrote:symbols wrote:Chief Guest wrote:symbols wrote:Chief Guest wrote:symbols wrote:Chief Guest wrote:symbols wrote:Indeed interesting. @danas10 - Accommodate my question to satisfy my curiosity(mine is also a straightforward question.yes or no ) Can you walk on darkness? You walk ON it or IN it? That's the question. Well, then Yes (only in the abstract can u walk ON darkness considering sight is creative/imaginatively so to speak.) Is blindness sight Blindness is ignorant sight. Do you need to see if you already know? the appropriate question is, 'do you need to know if you already know?' No,no? let me put it another way, 'you breath, you already know you breath, do you need to know that you breath? do you need to see that you breath? '
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
symbols wrote:jokes wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:David? Not Cain? I've been wondering who this David is, now I wonder how one can give Cain a run for 'his money'. Symbols can clarify. But has Cain ever stopped running? Running towards what? Or away from what/who? And who is this asking about Cain? Abel. Your Abel is becoming Cain. Abel cannot deny his brother. We grew up together and received the same instructions among other things. The only difference was the decisions we each took. If everything else was the same, why the difference? He was an angry man. What made him angry? And how did Abel not get angry with this thing? that's an interesting one. never thought it that way. if they were brought up the same , what happened to make them different, the ego i presume which we have no control over, the invisible hand that we refuse to see? God? [color=blue]It's not invisible.It's just to obvious to notice like fish with water.We use it to cover our nakedness.Pride rules this world. i agree with you that we use it to cover our nakedness and it rules the world, and its not obvious to notice. we do not notice it until we are doomed and death beckons, we realize it was all vanity. Ego. Pride.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
tycho wrote:Cain's problem; Why should God be pleased by receiving goodness and shun evil when he knows both good and evil, therefore responsible for both good and evil. Why shouldn't he look favorably on Cain's sacrifice?
Amen to that. In my culture Good and Evil are the same thing(person. Its like two sides of the same coin. It was one. Even our lords prayer recognizes this. Now Cain and Abel brought forth sacrifices to God and God was pleased with Abel's. So who was responsible for Cain's actions? Gods love for Abel? Cain's Ego? 
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:Cain: The issue was not what he wondered or thought but what he did.
Cain: He made an attempt to obey. He brought something. He did something. He could have refused flatly and instead went to the shamba as usual as Abel did his 'weird' stuff.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The eaters ate but did not die on that day. Instead something else did. A temporary symbol of a certain permanent surety. A prefiguration. Hence the promise of a certain 'seed'. Thereafter "unto adam and his wife did the lord God make coats of skins and clothed them". All that the eaters and Cain and Abel had now to do was to recognise that promised permanent surety (the anti-type) in its current (to them) and temporary symbol (the type).
Cain: Had only to see the anti-type in the type, to see the typology, to see the symbology.
The surety and its symbol died, not just die but had its blood spilt.
In all this, the slain symbology, typology, prefiguration, the anti-type and type, Abel observed the fulfillment of the warning 'ye shall surely die' and believed the 'warner', the speaker. Abel did not do much. Cain did not have to do much. The eaters did not do much.
Cain: The matter at hand was not so much to do with God as it had to do with Cain and what he did - and Abel and what he did.
So back to Cain. Shida yake ili kuwa wapi, honestly? Jameni.
Cain: Could he have recognised anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not recognise the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings.
Ps. i just love you guys, Symbols and Tycho, how you came to choose your usernames tells me there is no coincidence.
Your argument begins by removing motive in Cain. And furtively says that thoughts and actions and are independent. To prove guilt you must show thoughts. After all, if it's not about thought what is it about?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
Muriel wrote:Cain: The issue was not what he wondered or thought but what he did.
Cain: He made an attempt to obey. He brought something. He did something. He could have refused flatly and instead went to the shamba as usual as Abel did his 'weird' stuff.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The eaters ate but did not die on that day. Instead something else did. A temporary symbol of a certain permanent surety. A prefiguration. Hence the promise of a certain 'seed'. Thereafter "unto adam and his wife did the lord God make coats of skins and clothed them". All that the eaters and Cain and Abel had now to do was to recognise that promised permanent surety (the anti-type) in its current (to them) and temporary symbol (the type).
Cain: Had only to see the anti-type in the type, to see the typology, to see the symbology.
The surety and its symbol died, not just die but had its blood spilt.
In all this, the slain symbology, typology, prefiguration, the anti-type and type, Abel observed the fulfillment of the warning 'ye shall surely die' and believed the 'warner', the speaker. Abel did not do much. Cain did not have to do much. The eaters did not do much.
Cain: The matter at hand was not so much to do with God as it had to do with Cain and what he did - and Abel and what he did.
So back to Cain. Shida yake ili kuwa wapi, honestly? Jameni.
Cain: Could he have recognised anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not recognise the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings.
Ps. i just love you guys, Symbols and Tycho, how you came to choose your usernames tells me there is no coincidence.
Quite Good. I can see some clever word play, the EATERS AND TYPE AND SYMBOLS , nice but you need to make it a bit simpler or you loose your audience
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Muriel wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:I saw the other signature you had. The one with boxes and inverted characters and I couldn't get one of the words. And now again this one is has the same 'challenge'. Makes me wonder if you're still following the breath. No I'm not.I'm fading into it. What word?There is no challenge in this one.Just a funny joke I found. Muriel wrote:David? Not Cain? King David. Ooooh! That's different. But what is he more known by? His dance or his music? I remember him from where it all came from.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Muriel wrote:Cain: The issue was not what he wondered or thought but what he did.
Cain: He made an attempt to obey. He brought something. He did something. He could have refused flatly and instead went to the shamba as usual as Abel did his 'weird' stuff.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The eaters ate but did not die on that day. Instead something else did. A temporary symbol of a certain permanent surety. A prefiguration. Hence the promise of a certain 'seed'. Thereafter "unto adam and his wife did the lord God make coats of skins and clothed them". All that the eaters and Cain and Abel had now to do was to recognise that promised permanent surety (the anti-type) in its current (to them) and temporary symbol (the type).
Cain: Had only to see the anti-type in the type, to see the typology, to see the symbology.
The surety and its symbol died, not just die but had its blood spilt.
In all this, the slain symbology, typology, prefiguration, the anti-type and type, Abel observed the fulfillment of the warning 'ye shall surely die' and believed the 'warner', the speaker. Abel did not do much. Cain did not have to do much. The eaters did not do much.
Cain: The matter at hand was not so much to do with God as it had to do with Cain and what he did - and Abel and what he did.
So back to Cain. Shida yake ili kuwa wapi, honestly? Jameni.
Cain: Could he have recognised anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not recognise the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings.
Ps. i just love you guys, Symbols and Tycho, how you came to choose your usernames tells me there is no coincidence.
I feel the same way.I haven't found a seed worth protecting and nurturing like that.I still like to believe in coincidences.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
jokes wrote:symbols wrote:jokes wrote:symbols wrote:Chief Guest wrote:symbols wrote:Chief Guest wrote:symbols wrote:Chief Guest wrote:symbols wrote:Indeed interesting. @danas10 - Accommodate my question to satisfy my curiosity(mine is also a straightforward question.yes or no ) Can you walk on darkness? You walk ON it or IN it? That's the question. Well, then Yes (only in the abstract can u walk ON darkness considering sight is creative/imaginatively so to speak.) Is blindness sight Blindness is ignorant sight. Do you need to see if you already know? the appropriate question is, 'do you need to know if you already know?' No,no? let me put it another way, 'you breath, you already know you breath, do you need to know that you breath? do you need to see that you breath? ' I like that.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
jokes wrote:symbols wrote:jokes wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:David? Not Cain? I've been wondering who this David is, now I wonder how one can give Cain a run for 'his money'. Symbols can clarify. But has Cain ever stopped running? Running towards what? Or away from what/who? And who is this asking about Cain? Abel. Your Abel is becoming Cain. Abel cannot deny his brother. We grew up together and received the same instructions among other things. The only difference was the decisions we each took. If everything else was the same, why the difference? He was an angry man. What made him angry? And how did Abel not get angry with this thing? that's an interesting one. never thought it that way. if they were brought up the same , what happened to make them different, the ego i presume which we have no control over, the invisible hand that we refuse to see? God? [color=blue]It's not invisible.It's just to obvious to notice like fish with water.We use it to cover our nakedness.Pride rules this world. i agree with you that we use it to cover our nakedness and it rules the world, and its not obvious to notice. we do not notice it until we are doomed and death beckons, we realize it was all vanity. Ego. Pride. It's an intoxicating drug.Even the 'pushers' can't resist.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
jokes wrote:Muriel wrote:Cain: The issue was not what he wondered or thought but what he did.
Cain: He made an attempt to obey. He brought something. He did something. He could have refused flatly and instead went to the shamba as usual as Abel did his 'weird' stuff.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The eaters ate but did not die on that day. Instead something else did. A temporary symbol of a certain permanent surety. A prefiguration. Hence the promise of a certain 'seed'. Thereafter "unto adam and his wife did the lord God make coats of skins and clothed them". All that the eaters and Cain and Abel had now to do was to recognise that promised permanent surety (the anti-type) in its current (to them) and temporary symbol (the type).
Cain: Had only to see the anti-type in the type, to see the typology, to see the symbology.
The surety and its symbol died, not just die but had its blood spilt.
In all this, the slain symbology, typology, prefiguration, the anti-type and type, Abel observed the fulfillment of the warning 'ye shall surely die' and believed the 'warner', the speaker. Abel did not do much. Cain did not have to do much. The eaters did not do much.
Cain: The matter at hand was not so much to do with God as it had to do with Cain and what he did - and Abel and what he did.
So back to Cain. Shida yake ili kuwa wapi, honestly? Jameni.
Cain: Could he have recognised anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not recognise the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings.
Ps. i just love you guys, Symbols and Tycho, how you came to choose your usernames tells me there is no coincidence.
Quite Good. I can see some clever word play, the EATERS AND TYPE AND SYMBOLS , nice but you need to make it a bit simpler or you loose your audience lol. Will try though my dance partner knows my moves. They are familiar to him and am not trying to 'out dance' him.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
Kusadikika wrote:Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky. He is your favourite author. If he is not then it is because you have not read him. You have the same restless spirit. I would recommend "Crime and Punishment" if you have not read it. If you have I am certain you know it by heart. one of my favorite author and book i might add
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi? @Muriel, we need to establish what 'thinking much of something' entails. In my opinion, it is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Such that, all 'much thought' is ultimately 'self reflection'. See? Self reflection is study. Student. The altar is not for the thoughtless, for therein lies ultimate knowledge and power. Conversing with 'God' entails 'much thought'. And this not only means knowledge and full awareness of identity but also deliberate action.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:jokes wrote:Muriel wrote:Cain: The issue was not what he wondered or thought but what he did.
Cain: He made an attempt to obey. He brought something. He did something. He could have refused flatly and instead went to the shamba as usual as Abel did his 'weird' stuff.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The eaters ate but did not die on that day. Instead something else did. A temporary symbol of a certain permanent surety. A prefiguration. Hence the promise of a certain 'seed'. Thereafter "unto adam and his wife did the lord God make coats of skins and clothed them". All that the eaters and Cain and Abel had now to do was to recognise that promised permanent surety (the anti-type) in its current (to them) and temporary symbol (the type).
Cain: Had only to see the anti-type in the type, to see the typology, to see the symbology.
The surety and its symbol died, not just die but had its blood spilt.
In all this, the slain symbology, typology, prefiguration, the anti-type and type, Abel observed the fulfillment of the warning 'ye shall surely die' and believed the 'warner', the speaker. Abel did not do much. Cain did not have to do much. The eaters did not do much.
Cain: The matter at hand was not so much to do with God as it had to do with Cain and what he did - and Abel and what he did.
So back to Cain. Shida yake ili kuwa wapi, honestly? Jameni.
Cain: Could he have recognised anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not recognise the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings.
Ps. i just love you guys, Symbols and Tycho, how you came to choose your usernames tells me there is no coincidence.
Quite Good. I can see some clever word play, the EATERS AND TYPE AND SYMBOLS , nice but you need to make it a bit simpler or you loose your audience lol. Will try though my dance partner knows my moves. They are familiar to him and am not trying to 'out dance' him. @jokes, reading Muriel's post was 'difficult' at first. It's a hint that perhaps tycho is Muriel, or the other way round. A way of 'us' being equal to 'I'.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi? @Muriel, we need to establish what 'thinking much of something' entails. In my opinion, it is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Such that, all 'much thought' is ultimately 'self reflection'. See? Self reflection is study. Student. The altar is not for the thoughtless, for therein lies ultimate knowledge and power. Conversing with 'God' entails 'much thought'. And this not only means knowledge and full awareness of identity but also deliberate action. Okay, 'thinking much of something' is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Or merely relating to the object of thought. How you relate to the object of thought. Is it higher or lower as you observe from your point of view? He did not think much of = he thought low of = it was not a priority. List. Relation. Placement. From there I get a whiff of a 'sneaky redirect'. It has become 'much thought'? It is 'thinking much of something'. Relating. Placement.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Talk2Us
»
Tycho !! Click here...
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|