[MD] Energy, Pattern and Value

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Jan-Anders,

On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:57:32 +0100, "Jan-Anders" <jananderses at telia.com>
said:
> Tim
> 
> Many thanks for your comments.

[Tim]
likewise.

> [Jan-Anders] 
> I know that it is much to digest in one small moment of reading.

[Tim]
yes.  and no.  For what it is worth I want to let you know that I do not
think that 'digestion' was the problem.  What was digestible I think I
did a pretty good job of digesting.  But some of the things, which I
mentioned, I think they might have been undigestible - at least as
presented.  Of course this is a very tentative estimation of mine.  And
I don't mean any offense.  Perhaps it will help you in your writing
endeavor.

>[Jan-Anders] That is 
> why I am working on a book since some year. There is much much more to 
> say. It will come out some day I hope. Every MD member that I know of 
> will have a free, signed copy. Until that I suggest that you get your 
> own copy of Lila. It is a good book to have access to. I am sure that 
> you can find a fine used one the net somewhere. My suggestion is that 
> you concentrate on ch. 11, 12, 22 and 29.

[Tim]
I would certainly love to be able to pick up a copy of moment and flip
to these chapters right now.  I am quite the plebian so I will have to
pull some strings to buy a copy off the internet; fortunately the
library suffices for most stuff.

> [Jan-Anders]
> As usual it is useful to read a text many times to really get into it 
> and be able to hermeneutically extract the idea behind the sentences. 
> Our brains are biologic pattern under intellectual press. Do not let the 
> bad guys win the game.

[Tim]
:)

to be sure, though, I think 'the big note' can't play that one!  OF
course, to little notes, such a distinction doesn't always seem to
compensate enough.

> [Jan-Anders]
> The unknown (and free) is in between the deep details of reality, in the 
> future outside the glome and also in the forgotten past.

[Tim]
I think the unknown is more expansive than you are giving it credit for.
 But maybe this is a mere language detail...  well, I would just suggest
that you give my perspective a little more time to digest too.

> [Jan-Anders]
> You were right about perish I was thinking stay fresh and alive so 
> flourish was better word. Thanks. A social economy is where all members 
> in a social whole will benefit from the system, children, unemployed, 
> sick and retired seniors that does not work should get what they need to 
> keep a decent standard. People that does not trust a society because of 
> beneficial absence from it of has a hard time to respect laws and common 
> sense. They use to make up their own subsocieties. I can help my brother 
> if he is in real trouble but you can be sure that I will do my best to 
> make more money than him.

[Tim]
I was with you, pretty well, right up to the end.  Early on I was going
to caution you that 'benefit' is a subjective criteria!  Who is to
enforce an objective standard of 'benefit'?  But your heart seems in the
right place!  I have spoken with John about 'anarchy' in 'heaven'. 
Where people would each pursue their subjective 'benefit', and, as if by
magic, there would be no conflict.  But here, amidst mere humans - and
especially since there are always new ones --- which, to be sure, I
think is a really good thing ---- there will be conflict.  This is no
trivial thing!  There seems to be no real way to resolve the conflict. 
Humility, and a dedication to love seem to be the only hope.

If there are no brothers in real trouble, then we can be free, and we
can play the game of money - maybe.  Lots of brothers *are* in real
trouble.

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
                          wherever you are