.

Dear George,

.

Unfortunately, I do not have an English/Latin dictionary. I happen to be staying at my elder daughter’s place at the moment and consulted her abridged edition of the Gaffiot , reputed to be the best French/Latin dictionary, used in the French national education system (college-lycée-university).

There are 10 entries for “religio”, in essence as follows:

1. – scrupulous attention, scruple, delicateness, conscience
2. – religious scruple, religious sentiment, pious fear
3. – sentiment of respect, veneration, cult
4. – religious belief (in French, “croyance religieuse”), religion
5. – religious practices, cult
6. –respect (veneration) of something, sacred character
7. – sacred engagement
8. – venerated or sacred object,
9. – scruple for not being in conformity with divinity, impiety
10. – religious consecration which establishes that something belongs to divinity and cannot be used for secular purposes. Also: - prohibitions applying to certain days considered as being ill-fated

Entry n° 4 above is clear, precise and unambiguous.

This is the October 1998 edition of the abridged Gaffiot. I see that the 1934 edition it is online. Here is the link:

http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=religio

.

Dear Banjo,

A word standing by itself may have no meaning at all. It may only get meaning as part of a context. Eg, the words point and line in plane geometry. One of the axioms of plane geometry is: Two points determine a line. We could also make the axiomatic statement: Two lines determine a point. We make pictures of ‘point’ and ‘line’ in their relationship so we can define ‘determine’. The mathematical words, point and line, have no essence or meaning until we give them meaning by putting them in a context. In elementary school we are told that a point has no dimension, but we draw a dot. Any dot we draw actually has a dimension so we cannot actually draw a point. We are told that a line has no thickness, but we draw a line. Any line we draw actually has a thickness so we cannot actually draw a line. However, we have the power to imagine a point without dimension and a line without thickness.

Some people can juggle these concepts in their heads with no pictures at all. There are blind mathematicians. However, a blind person still has the concept of extension and dimension even though he or she may not be able to manipulate notations the way a sighted person can.

http://m-phi.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/what-is-it-like-to-be-blind.html discusses being a blind mathematician.

Words in the language of mathematics do not have the ambiguity of words in common parlance, but it still may be difficult to define their meaning. Words in computer languages have very precise meanings.

swedenbergs use..of uses comes to mind
why..lets go see.nothing..is useless

from
http://www.swedenborg.com/emanuel-swedenborg/explore/use/

<<..Swedenborg’s concept of use..(or useful service)
has a simple starting point:..*everything that has been created exists for a reason.>>..

its made more clear at the link
so i only quote one further thought
in..observance to..*the brevity comment
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5995&page=0

in that thread..take it as read

swdenberg..[the supreme..science mind..said

..<<Just as all of nature works together..to form a whole,
from the tiniest particle..to solar systems and galaxies,..so too does every person..have a reason for being—a specific purpose to fulfill.>>

and that folks is my ill
where is the bit i need to..infill..,.
\
anyhow..me being me
one more quote..to help us see..the me..in we*

what is a sentence..
but the context..[connects]..of works..as attached..to the word*..[joinder]..

<<..“Can anyone fail to see quite clearly
that the goals of creation..are useful functions?>>

finding that good of god..[inother]

..<<Simply bear..in mind..that nothing*.can arise..
but from God.the Creator—..nothing that can be created,..
therefore—NOTHING..that is..*not useful.>>

<<If it is to be useful,
it must be..for the sake of others...Even if
it is for its own sake,..it is still for others.. because we are useful..to ourselves..*in order to be fit to be useful to others.

Anyone who keeps this in mind
can also keep..in mind..the thought that functions that are truly useful..cannot arise from us..*but from one who brings forth nothing but*..what is useful—the Lord.”

(Divine Love and Wisdom #308)>>..

ahhhmen

Dear George,

Certainly one can hope and also confront reality. However, my question is not whether they are mutually exclusive but whether hope should be regarded as a virtue any more than despair. We are enjoined to be positive and optimistic rather than to be negative and pessimistic. However, in making decisions on personal. business, governmental, scientific or many other matters I think it is often better to avoid both optimism and pessimism in favour of making realistic estimates. I think hope should not be regarded as a virtue.

Sometimes it may be better to be optimistic and sometimes pessimistic. When entering into negotiations optimism in reaching an agreement is called for if one wants an agreement. If the engineers who had designed the levees for New Orleans had assumed the worse case scenario and provided for a gale force of 5 rather than 3 as they actually did New Orleans would not have been inundated. It might be a virtue to adopt the attitude that the situation calls for – hope, despair, realism or something else..

Crime is not only the result of social conditions, but some moralistic politicians and other individuals credit it entirely to personal morality and oppose social programs to relieve poverty. Some bible-bashers cite Matthew 26:11: For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

My son Seth has a girlfriend whose father is a reactionary property magnate in California. Her father would attack crime by changing US law to allow displays of the Decalogue in public school class rooms. Many people in the US think displays of religiosity in schools and other places would improve the world. He has financed the law school at Pepperdine U and hired Ken Starr who prosecuted Clinton in his impeachment proceedings. Most of her family are Catholics of the Opus Dei type being lawyers, judges, real estate developers etc. She has rejected all of that and like Seth is a biochemist.

from
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Life_in_the_World_Unseen.pdf

which..hopefully..
expands this quote..<<..A word..*standing by itself may have..no meaning at all...*>>..

silence*

..<<It may only get meaning..*as part of a context...
*Eg,..the words point..and line in plane geometry.

pleas
please..see chapter..vii

<<..There are laws of music here..
which have no application to the earth whatever,.because.*>>..

[by and large/exept those especially listening..for IN-spiration..
like writers/scientists/artists*..etc]..

*<<..the earth is neither..sufficiently progressed..on the one hand, and on the other..because the spirit world..<<REALLY>>..is..of spirit,..<<..aether/essence/essentials/uses>>..while the
earth world..is of..<<earthy/material>>.matter/matters>...

<<It is doubtful..if the earth-plane..*will ever become ethereal enough..to hear many of..*the forms*..<<uses*/fun-ction>>..of spirit music..in the higher realms.>>

<<..Innovations have been tried,>>

many/and vairiable messengers..were sent/by uncountable messengers/specialties..[all*]..by inspiration..yetthey comprehended not>>,

..<<..so I have/been told,..on the..earth-plane,..
but the result..is not only barbaric..<<to *our/hearing/seeing/emoting>>..,..<<.but childish as well.

Earthly ears*..[hear]..*are not attuned..to..[spirit].music
that is..essentially[at essence]...*of the spirit realms.>>

<<..The work to be played..was of some length,..I was informed,
and would be..continued..*without any break>>.

the sound..that keeps evolving

<<>.The opening movement..was of a subdued nature
as regards..its volume*..of sound,..and we noticed that
the instant*..the music commenced..*a bright light*..,<POINT>>..

seemed to rise up..<<..line>>..

..<<from the direction..of the orchestra..until it
floated,..in a flat surface,>>..

<<..As the music proceeded,..this broad..*sheet of light
grew..in strength and density,..forming,..as it
were,..*a firm foundation..*for what was to follow.*..>>..

ITS..[.]...the point expanded..
next

..<<..I was conscious..of its sound,
but that was really all...Presently,..at equal spaces round the circumference of the theatre,..four towers of light..shot up into the sky in..long tapering pinnacles of luminosity...They remained poised for a moment,..and then slowly descended,becoming broader in girth as they did so,..until they assumed the outward appearance of four circular/towers,..each surmounted with a dome,..perfectly proportioned.>>..

<<..In the meanwhile, the central area of light
had thickened still more, and was beginning to rise slowly in the shape of an immense dome covering the
whole theatre.

This continued to ascend steadily until it seemed to reach a very much greater height than
the four towers, while the most delicate colours were diffused throughout the whole of the etheric structure.>>..wha/tever that means

Dear oug,

Why did you write, "im so embarrassed" in a previous post? What embarrassed you?